Rationality Quotes: February 2011

13 Post author: gwern 01 February 2011 05:46PM

Take off every 'quote'! You know what you doing. For great insight. Move 'quote'.

And if you don't:

  • Please post all quotes separately, so that they can be voted up/down separately.  (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments.  If strongly ordered, then go ahead and post them together.)
  • Do not quote yourself.
  • Do not quote comments/posts from LW. (If you want to exclude OB too create your own quotes thread! OB is entertaining and insightful and all but it is no rationality blog!)
  • No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.

Comments (347)

Sort By: Controversial
Comment author: Robin 02 February 2011 06:13:11PM -1 points [-]

"Everything works by magick; science represents a small domain of magick where coincidences have a relatively high probability of occurrence."

Comment author: false_vacuum 04 February 2011 12:55:27AM 2 points [-]

Does this merely call attention to the high probability of the existence of unknown unknowns, or does it promote map-territory confusion?

Comment author: roland 06 February 2011 11:34:00PM 1 point [-]
Comment author: JoshuaZ 06 February 2011 11:58:37PM 1 point [-]

How is this a rationality quote?

Comment author: roland 07 February 2011 01:04:50AM *  5 points [-]

Thanks for asking. I linked it on purpose to wikipedia from where I quote:

The meaning is sometimes used less colloquially as: "Meanwhile, the irreplaceable time escapes", expressing concern that one's limited time is being consumed by something which may have little intrinsic substance or importance at that moment.

Tempus fugit is a succint admonition to focus on what is really important as opposed to what is merely salient. Focus on the not urgent but important things(quadrant 2 in the covey matrix).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MerrillCoveyMatrix.png

Comment author: gwern 07 February 2011 12:34:10AM 3 points [-]

I thought it was a good quote, although I'm not sure LWers need to know it. (On the other hand, one might think the same thing of curing aging or helping cryonics, but Eliezer's essay on his dead brother still got a substantial reaction.)

Do you like this one better?

"Buy not what you want, but what you have need of; what you do not want is dear at a farthing."

--Cato the Elder; Epistles (94) as quoted by Seneca

Comment author: RichardKennaway 06 February 2011 10:53:31AM -1 points [-]

When we exhort people to Faith as a virtue, to the settled intention of continuing to believe certain things, we are not exhorting them to fight against reason. The intention of continuing to believe is required because, though Reason is divine, human reasoners are not. When once passion takes part in the game, the human reason, unassisted by Grace, has about as much chance of retaining its hold on truths already gained as a snowflake has of retaining its consistency in the mouth of a blast furnace.

C.S. Lewis, "Religion: Reality or Substitute?", in "Christian Reflections".

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 06 February 2011 08:20:34PM 1 point [-]

Anyone want to try and tease a rationality message out of this?

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 07 February 2011 01:41:07AM 3 points [-]

Within the context of Lewis' Christianity, it could be the valid form of the argument from authority: don't believe appealing falsehoods with a little evidence over unappealing truths with a lot of evidence you don't know. To give an example: you tell kids to believe evolution or special relativity without explaining the evidence in detail, but it would still be right for them to have "faith" instead of changing to believe creationism the first time they read a (bogus, but they wouldn't be able to tell) creationist argument on the internet.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 07 February 2011 08:41:13AM *  3 points [-]

Except that Lewis' Christianity was not based on any authority deemed infallible. He reasoned himself into it, while recognising the fallibility of reason. His writings set out his arguments; they do not tout any source of authority whose reliability he has not already argued.

But how can one rightly reason, while recognising one's fallibility? That is an issue for rationalists as well.

Let me fix the original quote for you:

When we exhort people to Faith as a virtue, to the settled intention of continuing to believe certain things, we are not exhorting them to fight against reason. The intention of continuing to believe is required because, though Reason is perfect, human reasoners are not. When once passion takes part in the game, the human reason, unassisted, has about as much chance of retaining its hold on truths already gained as a snowflake has of retaining its consistency in the mouth of a blast furnace.

When a long argument produces a conclusion that strikes one as absurd, one sometimes just has to say, "This is bullshit. I don't know what's wrong with the argument, but I'm not going along with it."

Comment author: Mass_Driver 11 February 2011 04:41:53AM 2 points [-]

I think the flaw in the syllogism is "the human reason, unassisted, has a low chance of retaining its hold on truths." We certainly forget a great deal of procedural and propositional knowledge if we don't use it on a regular basis, but that's different from letting go of a belief because you are passionate about how inconvenient the belief is. Once a belief takes root -- i.e., after you announce it to your friends and take some actions based on it -- it is usually very difficult to let go of that belief.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 06 February 2011 09:28:04PM 3 points [-]

My take: "Because our cognition is unreliable, we can easily lose sight of truths we started out knowing as we walk along tempting-but-wrong garden paths, especially when strong emotions are involved."

In other contexts this is sometimes known as "being so sharp you cut yourself."

Comment author: Nornagest 07 February 2011 06:56:47PM *  1 point [-]

That's a good moral, but to me Lewis's quote seems to be more simply interpreted as an exhortation against successful doubt. Our thinking is certainly unreliable, but compensating for that with a fixed intention to keep believing whatever we're currently obsessed with seems like exactly the wrong thing to do; it essentially enshrines motivated cognition as a virtue.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 07 February 2011 07:39:50PM 1 point [-]

Having a "settled intention of continuing to believe" X shares with having a "high prior probability for" X the property that quite a lot of counterevidence can pile up before I actually start considering X unlikely.

This is not a bad thing, in and of itself.

Of course, if X happens to be false, it's an unfortunate condition to find myself in. But if X is true, it's a fortunate one. That just shows that it's better to believe true things than false ones, no matter how high or low your priors or settled or indecisive your intentions.

Of course, if I start refusing to update on counterevidence at all, that's a problem. And I agree, it's easy to read Lewis as endorsing refusing to update on counterevidence, if only by pattern-matching to religious arguments in general.

Comment author: Nornagest 07 February 2011 07:53:08PM *  2 points [-]

Point taken, but Lewis wasn't operating within a Bayesian framework. I haven't read a lot of his apologetics, but what I remember seemed to be working through the lens of informal philosophy, where a concept is accepted or rejected as a unit based on whether or not you can think of sufficiently clever responses to all the challenges you're aware of.

From this perspective, a "settled intention of continuing to believe" implies putting a lot more mental effort into finding clever defenses of your beliefs, and Lewis's professed acceptance of reason implies nothing more than admitting challenges in principle. Since it's possible to rationalize pretty much anything, this strikes me as functionally equivalent to refusing to update.

And, of course, enshrining the state of holding high priors as virtuous in itself carries its own problems.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 07 February 2011 08:13:57PM 1 point [-]

(nods) Mostly agreed.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 06 February 2011 10:17:13PM 1 point [-]

You get it.

Comment author: gwern 06 February 2011 08:39:42PM 7 points [-]

Lewis is saying that if you've disproved faith, your reason is flawed. After all, faith must be right!

This is 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', but in unfamiliar garb. We're not used to seeing it used the other way. (If a study reports ESP, then we ought to suspect problems in how it was conducted or analyzed rather than accept its conclusion - to use a recent example.)

I'm sure there are a number of relevant LW posts on the topic like "Einstein's Arrogance".

Comment author: Desrtopa 07 February 2011 05:26:46PM 2 points [-]

The one that immediately comes to mind for me is making your explicit reasoning trustworthy. Lewis was exhorting Christians not to trust their explicit reasoning.

Comment author: Robin 02 February 2011 06:15:02PM 0 points [-]

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but yourself can free your mind.

An upvote to the first person to correctly identify the first person to say that (the quote is often misattributed, you'll get a downvote if you identify the wrong author).

Comment author: gwern 02 February 2011 06:25:55PM *  2 points [-]

Bob Marley, although before I checked Google search, Books, and Scholar, I had expected to find it was by Epictetus. Oh well.

EDIT: In my defense, Garvey's original is not the same as the Bob Marley version which Robin presented. I think it's a little disingenuous to consider the Bob Marley version 'misattributed'.

Comment author: aranazo 04 February 2011 01:34:56PM 1 point [-]

Reminded me of...

You can lead a man to slaughter, but you'll never make him think

Roy Harper

Comment author: Skatche 02 February 2011 11:21:00PM *  4 points [-]

We are going to emancipate ourselves from mental slavery because whilst others might free the body, none but ourselves can free the mind. Mind is your only ruler, sovereign. The man who is not able to develop and use his mind is bound to be the slave of the other man who uses his mind

Marcus Garvey. I think it works better in this longer form.

Comment author: billswift 01 February 2011 07:48:07PM *  4 points [-]

Pendarvis Theory of Technology: "..., it is my theory that everything wrong with everything is the fault of language teachers.

"If a child is taught that it is all right if you mis-spell a word occasionally, or don't always punctuate exactly correctly, then you are teaching that child that small mistakes are okay, as long as people know pretty well what is meant. I feel this is a dangerous attitude to foster in a highly technological society."

-- William Tuning, Fuzzy Bones

Comment author: Pavitra 02 February 2011 07:33:07PM 6 points [-]
Comment author: Wei_Dai 02 February 2011 07:55:40PM *  8 points [-]

That's true if the only benefit of proofreading is finding misspellings. But you should be proofreading to find errors of expression in general, and the optimal amount of proofreading for that may imply that you find and fix all misspellings.

Comment author: mwengler 02 February 2011 08:14:22PM 17 points [-]

Better to teach the child the difference between programming a computer, proving a theorem, and writing an essay.

Comment author: Dreaded_Anomaly 08 February 2011 11:39:14PM 1 point [-]

Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing.

— Dwight Schrute ("The Office" Season 3, Episode 17 "Business School," written by Brent Forrester)

Comment author: Desrtopa 09 February 2011 02:02:18AM 6 points [-]

Sounds like reversed stupidity.

Comment author: RobinZ 11 February 2011 03:48:47AM 2 points [-]

It would be better to explain why that is a bad thing when you post statements such as that.

Comment author: wedrifid 11 February 2011 04:17:59AM *  2 points [-]

The 'least convenient possible world' might be relevant too. I translated the verbal self interrogation as something that would elicit responses along the lines of "would doing this thing distinguish one as an idiot?" In practice the question probably would be useful. In fact, in practice only an idiot would really reverse the stupidity of an idiot when asking that question of themselves. Breath, eat, etc.

Comment author: Thomas 09 February 2011 07:56:33PM 2 points [-]

Mr President, the Eagle has landed!

  • A note, left at Kennedy's grave.
Comment author: Xom 03 February 2011 08:58:24PM *  6 points [-]

Opinions are like sex, you should change your positions if it feels wrong

~ garcia1000, Witchhunt game

Comment author: AlexMennen 05 February 2011 05:49:28AM 6 points [-]

It would be more accurate to say that you should critically look over the evidence again if your position feels wrong. A belief can be justified by logic and still be at odds with intuition, making it still feel wrong. Example: There are compelling arguments that simulation hypothesis is at least somewhat likely to be correct. However, my intuition tells me that the simulation hypothesis is just plain false. I know that this is a subject that my intuition is poorly suited for, so I follow the logic and estimate a non-negligible chance of being in a simulation, despite it feeling wrong.

Comment author: Jack 03 February 2011 11:08:42PM 20 points [-]

But unlike sex you shouldn't change positions just for fun and novelty.

Comment author: wnoise 04 February 2011 06:00:41AM *  1 point [-]

Depends on how useful you think the experience of being a devil's advocate is.

Comment author: FiftyTwo 11 September 2011 09:34:02PM 1 point [-]

You should experiment with multiple positions, then use the best one.

Comment author: CronoDAS 02 February 2011 11:37:38PM 2 points [-]

[E]conomic statistics are a peculiarly boring sub-genre of science fiction; extremely useful, but not to be treated as absolute truth.

-- Paul Krugman

Comment author: Costanza 03 February 2011 12:46:23AM 4 points [-]

Speaking of peculiarly boring sub-genres of science fiction, I am told that Paul Krugman was once the best and most promising of the Jedi Masters of Economics. But somehow, the forces of the Sith seduced him to the dark side, and he has since become Darth Pundit the Mindkillingly Political.

In any case, if economic statistics are bad, let them be made better. For that matter, if they're very, very good, let them be made better still, and even then nobody should treat them as the absolute truth.

Comment author: gjm 12 September 2011 11:32:13AM 2 points [-]

He has certainly become political. It might be worth asking: Has he become any less accurate in the process? Another possibility would be that the positions taken up by the major political parties in the US at present are such that it's impossible to tell the truth about some subjects without being (perceived as) highly political.

(That's certainly happened often before. For extreme examples, consider cases where an important political movement is based on badly broken racial theories or on a specific religion.)

Comment author: [deleted] 12 September 2011 11:45:03AM *  2 points [-]

Has he become any less accurate in the process?

According to this study, he does okay, but I'm not impressed with their methodology. For some reason I can't copy/paste the relevant section of the PDF, but they discuss him explicitly on page 15. They looked at "a random sample" of his columns and television appearances (whatever that means) and found 17 predictions, of which 14 were right, 1 was wrong, and 1 was hedged.

Only 17 predictions? I thought we did science.

"He is, after all, a Nobel-prize winning economist."

Comment author: gjm 12 September 2011 12:17:17PM 1 point [-]

I agree that that study is unimpressive, in a number of ways. (And it's comparing his accuracy with that of other pundits, rather than with that of past-Krugman.)

Comment author: rhollerith_dot_com 03 February 2011 03:53:30AM 7 points [-]

"A witty saying proves nothing" --Voltaire

Comment author: CronoDAS 03 February 2011 07:21:22PM 9 points [-]

Wise men create proverbs, and fools repeat them.

Comment author: ata 03 February 2011 04:16:43AM 7 points [-]

That's been posted (a few times) before. Though it may be worth repeating.

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 03 February 2011 01:28:19AM *  7 points [-]

I appeal to the philosophers of all countries to unite and never again mention Heidegger or talk to another philosopher who defends Heidegger.

-Karl Popper

Comment author: JoshuaZ 03 February 2011 06:18:44AM 6 points [-]

I don't like this quote. It is amusing but not very rational. It is not rational to ignore arguments because they were made by an awful person. It also isn't rational even if one thinks that an argument or set of ideas is not worth thinking about to actively refuse to discuss those ideas, even if one thinks that the ideas aren't worth considering. The first part of the quote is marginally defensible if Popper is very sure that Heidegger's ideas are a waste of time. The second part of the quote, about refusing to talk to people who defend Heidegger makes about as much sense as a religion telling its adherents not to listen to some specific critic.

(That said, while I'm by no means an expert on this matter, my general opinion is that Heidegger is a waste of time.)

Comment author: shokwave 03 February 2011 08:35:01AM 14 points [-]

It is not rational to ignore arguments because they were made by an awful person.

In academic philosophy there is a tendency to refer to "Heidegger's arguments and positions" as simply "Heidegger". (This is true of all philosophers, not just Heidegger). Popper, of course, would have been familiar with this; when I read that quote I got the distinct impression of "Heidegger's arguments are hollow and his positions are indefensible; please can we agree on this and stop discussing them?"

Comment author: Sniffnoy 03 February 2011 06:29:06AM 6 points [-]

The second part of the quote, about refusing to talk to people who defend Heidegger makes about as much sense as a religion telling its adherents not to listen to some specific critic.

Relevant old LW post: Tolerate tolerance.

Comment author: Quirinus_Quirrell 02 February 2011 02:10:03AM 10 points [-]

The world around us redounds with opportunities, explodes with opportunities, which nearly all folk ignore because it would require them to violate a habit of thought ... I cannot quite comprehend what goes through people's minds when they repeat the same failed strategy over and over, but apparently it is an astonishingly rare realization that you can try something else.

-- Eliezer Yudkowsky, putting words in my other copy's mouth

Comment author: gwern 02 February 2011 02:25:26AM 8 points [-]

Meta-comment: I think MoR quotes are legitimate for rationality quote pages, since IIRC we previously established that Eliezer quotes from Hacker News were kosher. And if random Eliezer comments not on OB/LW are kosher, then surely quotes from his fiction are kosher.

Comment author: shokwave 02 February 2011 02:47:43AM 14 points [-]

I disagree. MoR fits the same criteria ("shooting fish in a barrel") as OB/LW.

Comment author: Perplexed 03 February 2011 02:18:09PM 11 points [-]

surely quotes from his fiction are kosher.

I'm happy to see gems from HPMOR done up in needlepoint and hung on the metaphorical wall of the parlor. But it still smells like trayf! Consider:

Quirrell avoids the ban on quoting himself by attributing the quotation to Eliezer. And he then avoids the ban on quoting Eliezer by pointing out that Eliezer was quoting Quirrell. This is clever and slippery and rabbinical and all that, but it jumps the shark when you realize that Quirrell is not just Eliezer's HPMOR character, he is also probably his LW sock-puppet!

Comment author: orthonormal 05 February 2011 10:30:59PM 15 points [-]

Quirrell is not just Eliezer's HPMOR character, he is also probably his LW sock-puppet!

Oh, come on. It's obviously been the other way around all along.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 07 February 2011 12:18:20AM 2 points [-]

You simultaneously gave me the lolz and the shivers. Karma for you!

Comment author: gwern 03 February 2011 11:25:58PM 6 points [-]

I didn't know there was another antonym to kosher besides nonkosher. Interesting.

Anyway, I don't think Quirrel is Eliezer; if he is, then most of the usual reasons against self-quoting wouldn't apply anyway. (It's not like Eliezer needs more karma or higher profile here.)

Comment author: MartinB 03 February 2011 02:48:24PM 1 point [-]

He is a clever guy. Be carefull!

Comment author: sketerpot 02 March 2011 06:35:14AM 3 points [-]

"Meanness and stupidity are so closely related that anything you do to decrease one will probably also decrease the other."

--Paul Graham, here.

Comment author: wedrifid 02 March 2011 09:14:29AM -1 points [-]
  • Select the most dominant prisoner in every (male) prison in the country and use them to artificially inseminate 5,000 women each (use IVF with the female top dogs if you wish too).
  • Punish all observed incidents of stupidity with physical beating.

I voted the comment up - because there is a relationship there. There are just other correlations and causal influences that are somewhat stronger in some situations.

Comment author: gjm 12 September 2011 10:14:44AM -1 points [-]

The fact that you had to choose so ridiculous an example suggests that Paul Graham is basically correct. (I think the correct reading of "anything you do to decrease one will probably also decrease the other" is "if you pick something that decreases one, it will probably decrease the other" rather than "literally every single thing that might decrease one will, with high probability given that you do that particular thing, decrease the other".)

Comment author: wedrifid 12 September 2011 10:58:54AM 3 points [-]

The fact that you had to choose so ridiculous an example suggests that Paul Graham is basically correct.

No it doesn't. It suggests that when selecting examples for the purpose of countering generalizations wedrifid chooses examples that are clear and unambiguous to anyone who correctly parses the claim rather than choosing the most likely counter example. This is particularly the case when rejecting the extent of a general claim while accepting the gist - as I went out of the way to make explicit.

I also reject the idea that the second example I gave is at all unrealistic:

Punish all observed incidents of stupidity with physical beating.

Corporal punishment for stupidity is an actual (hopefully mostly historical) thing.

Comment author: gwern 12 September 2011 02:35:43PM 1 point [-]

Corporal punishment for stupidity is an actual (hopefully mostly historical) thing.

I can't help this quote:

"Stupidity is always a capital crime."

--N-Space, Larry Niven

Comment author: gjm 12 September 2011 11:10:26AM *  1 point [-]

For the record, I took you to be proposing a single counterexample with two components, rather than two separate counterexamples; I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

Now that I know the second bullet point was meant to be a separate counterexample, I have a different objection to it: I am unconvinced that any implementable version of it would both reduce stupidity and increase meanness. (The most likely outcome, I think, would be to increase meanness while replacing more blatant varieties of stupidity with more widely spread lower-level stupidity.)

EDITED to add: Oh, one other thing. If it happens that (1) it was you who downvoted me and (2) you did so because you thought I downvoted your previous comment, then you might want to know that I didn't.

Comment author: lukeprog 21 February 2011 03:12:32AM 3 points [-]

"All this knowledge is giving me a raging brainer!"

Professor Farnsworth, Futurama

Comment author: Robin 02 February 2011 06:13:52PM 6 points [-]

The same reign of terror that occurred under Robespierre and Hitler occurred back then in the fifties, as it occurs now. You must realize that there is very little actual courage in this world. It's pretty easy to bend people around. It doesn't take much to shut people up, it really doesn't. In the fifties all I had to do was call a guy up on the telephone and say, "Well, I think your wife would like to know about your mistress."

An upvote to the first person to identify the author of that quote.

Comment author: Eneasz 02 February 2011 07:12:49PM 0 points [-]

I like the quote, but I downvoted. An upvote to the first person to identify why.

Comment author: MartinB 04 February 2011 02:24:25AM 1 point [-]

It's wrong.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 02 February 2011 11:46:22PM 6 points [-]

Because of the "an upvote to whoever can identify the author"?

Comment author: TheOtherDave 02 February 2011 07:15:07PM 2 points [-]

Godwin's Law violation?

Comment author: SilasBarta 02 February 2011 07:17:25PM 4 points [-]

So, wait, was it that:

a) Most men worth influencing in the 50s had a mistress his wife didn't know about?

or that:

b) Most men worth influencing in the 50s understood that the guy calling him could persuade the wife that there was a mistress irrespective of whether there was really a mistress?

Comment author: Robin 02 February 2011 11:01:04PM 2 points [-]

I don't know which it was.

But I'd say that you're seeing the trees, not the forest.

The major point of the quote was that there's a lack of courage in the world, the rest of the quote is just examples.

Comment author: SilasBarta 03 February 2011 12:12:12AM 3 points [-]

The courage to allow one's infidelity to be exposed (let alone falsely exposed) isn't what most people have in mind when they think of courage.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 February 2011 10:37:01PM 1 point [-]

b) fits in better with the reign of terror metaphor.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 02 February 2011 07:23:36PM 6 points [-]

Or perhaps that they believed they had a mistress, whether they did or didn't?

</joke>

Comment author: BillyOblivion 08 February 2011 10:42:04AM 1 point [-]

Dude, SRSLY, 30 seconds with google.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ronald_DeWolf

Comment author: knb 02 February 2011 08:19:23PM 4 points [-]

Ronald DeWolf. The son of L. Ron Hubbard.

Comment author: David_Gerard 19 February 2011 08:12:43PM *  4 points [-]

Seibel: The way you contributed technically to the PTRAN project, it sounds like you had the big architectural picture of how the whole thing was going to work and could point out the bits that it wasn’t clear how they were going to work.

Allen: Right.

Seibel: Do you think that ability was something that you had early on, or did that develop over time?

Allen: I think it came partially out of growing up on a farm. If one looks at a lot of the interesting engineering things that happened in our field—in this era or a little earlier—an awful lot of them come from farm kids. I stumbled on this from some of the people that I worked with in the National Academy of Engineering—a whole bunch of these older men came from Midwestern farms. And they got very involved with designing rockets and other very engineering and systemy and hands-on kinds of things. I think that being involved with farms and nature, I had a great interest in, how does one fix things and how do things work?

Seibel: And a farm is a big system of inputs and outputs.

Allen: Right. And since it’s very close to nature, it has its own cycles, its own system that you can do nothing about. So one finds a place in it, and it’s a very comfortable one.

-- Turing Award-winning computer scientist Fran Allen interviewed in Peter Seibel's Coders At Work, p507

(This is a great book, by the way. I strongly recommend it to anyone whose work involves how computers do what they do.)

Comment author: Thomas 01 February 2011 10:45:33PM 18 points [-]

Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Give a man a fishing rod and he'll sell it for a fish.

  • ???
Comment author: RichardKennaway 13 April 2012 11:03:59AM 0 points [-]

Give a man a fish and he'll be back to pester you tomorrow. Give him a fishing rod and tomorrow you can tell him to piss off.

Unknown source.

But I'm not sure what any of the variants of this have to do with rationality.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 02 February 2011 11:33:05AM *  12 points [-]

Make a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

(Terry Pratchett, I think.)

Comment author: Alicorn 02 February 2011 12:40:49PM 10 points [-]

I think it's more elegant to say it like this: "Light a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man afire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Comment author: shokwave 02 February 2011 12:53:22PM *  2 points [-]

In text, yes. I said it aloud a few times and I couldn't tell the two apart easily. Maybe "light a man A fire / light a man ON fire"

Comment author: Alicorn 02 February 2011 01:08:37PM 1 point [-]

I've successfully delivered "a fire"/"afire" aloud, but it's a little tricky to time right.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 02 February 2011 12:52:49PM 1 point [-]

I find my formulation slightly quicker to parse, but otherwise you're right.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 02 February 2011 11:37:34AM 16 points [-]

I saw a creepy hospice volunteer search ad on the street a few days ago. It said something along the lines of "They will be grateful to you for the rest of their lives." Like an inappropriate joke.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 02 February 2011 11:40:59AM 6 points [-]

That's... disturbing, but also weirdly compelling.

Comment author: MartinB 02 February 2011 12:51:48AM 7 points [-]

That looks like a description of one problem with support of developing countries.

Comment author: Kyre 03 February 2011 04:31:24AM 6 points [-]

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day

Teach a man to fish, feed him for around 15 years until his major fishery collapses into unprofitability.

Comment author: cousin_it 14 February 2011 04:42:48PM 7 points [-]

The astro-philosophers of Krull once succeeded in proving conclusively that all places are one place and that the distance between them is an illusion, and this news was an embarrassment to all thinking philosophers because it did not explain, among other things, signposts.

-- Terry Pratchett, "Sourcery"

Comment author: mwengler 02 February 2011 08:07:40PM 7 points [-]

"Paper clips are gregarious by nature, and solitary ones tend to look very, very depressed." - dwardu

Comment author: atucker 02 February 2011 03:06:00AM *  8 points [-]

Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.

-- Aristotle

Comment author: khafra 02 February 2011 02:32:19PM 16 points [-]

"Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible. The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks." -- Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective

Comment author: Snowyowl 02 February 2011 08:36:52PM *  10 points [-]

In Dirk Gently's universe, a number of everyday events involve hypnotism, time travel, aliens, or some combination thereof. Dirk gets to the right answer by considering those possibilities, but we probably won't.

Comment author: DSimon 02 February 2011 06:07:10PM 3 points [-]

I love this quote, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't describe it as "rational".

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 02 February 2011 06:18:44PM 22 points [-]

I think we could modify our sense of it to mean that if you are down to having to accept a 0.01% probability, because you've excluded everything else, then it's probably better to go back over your logic and see if there's any place you've improperly limited your hypothesis space.

Several paradigm-changing theories introduced concepts that would have previously been thought impossible (like special relativity, or many-worlds interpretation)

Comment author: false_vacuum 04 February 2011 12:45:09AM 2 points [-]

I don't understand this one.

Comment author: atucker 04 February 2011 12:56:07AM 1 point [-]

The way I read it was that he's using "impossibilities" to mean things that you don't think are possible, don't understand, or find inconceivable rather than things which can't actually happen.

A probable impossibility is something that will probably happen that a given person doesn't think is possible. An improbable possibility is something that that same person understands, but (whether you know it or not) isn't probable.

Comment author: false_vacuum 04 February 2011 01:29:39AM 1 point [-]

I read 'probable impossibility' as 'something that is probably impossible'. It's a poor translation if it means something else; but your version at least makes some kind of sense.

Comment author: gwern 01 February 2011 05:48:38PM *  9 points [-]

"Alas, how terrible is wisdom
when it brings no profit to the man that's wise!
This I knew well, but had forgotten it,
else I would not have come here."

--Teiresias to the unrelenting Oedipus, Oedipus the King 316-9, Sophocles

(Assigning a specific location to 'here' left as an exercise for the reader...)

Comment author: CronoDAS 03 February 2011 07:19:37PM 10 points [-]

Nothing in life is certain except death, taxes and the second law of thermodynamics. All three are processes in which useful or accessible forms of some quantity, such as energy or money, are transformed into useless, inaccessible forms of the same quantity. That is not to say that these three processes don't have fringe benefits: taxes pay for roads and schools; the second law of thermodynamics drives cars, computers and metabolism; and death, at the very least, opens up tenured faculty positions.

-- Seth Lloyd

Comment author: Armok_GoB 08 February 2011 02:17:54PM 2 points [-]

I read this as an argument against having taxes.

Comment author: MartinB 04 February 2011 05:41:33AM 11 points [-]

I would like to get rid of one or two of them. Its painfull to see how often really inevitable things get confused with those that could at least in theory be dealt with.

Comment author: kboon 03 February 2011 10:46:55AM 11 points [-]

We've all bought and enjoyed books called 'Optical Illusions'. We all love optical illusions. But that's not what they should call the book. They should call them 'Brain Failures'. Because that what it is: a complete failure of human perception. All it takes is a few clever sketches and our brains can't figure it out.

  • Neil deGrasse Tyson

Transcribed from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAD25s53wmE

Comment author: Timwi 07 February 2011 03:12:39AM 2 points [-]

How do you define “illusion”? I think an illusion is a type of brain failure. An optical illusion is even more specific. Therefore, I think the term is wholly appropriate — and “brain failure”, while not at all inappropriate, is just unnecessarily vague.

Comment author: Dr_Manhattan 03 February 2011 12:49:51PM 9 points [-]

They should call them 'Brain Failures'

Disagree, at least in some instances. Many of these are just results of optimizing for normal environment.

There is a theorem in machine learning (blanking on the name) that says any "learner" will have to be biased in some sense.

Comment author: fiddlemath 03 February 2011 02:01:58PM *  7 points [-]

There is a theorem in machine learning (blanking on the name) that says any "learner" will have to be biased in some sense.

The No Free Lunch Theorem.

Also, just because we can't expect to be free of bias doesn't mean that the bias is "proper functioning" of the hardware. An expected failure, perhaps, but still a failure.

</pedantry>

Comment author: Dr_Manhattan 03 February 2011 02:12:25PM *  3 points [-]

I make a finer distinction of "failure" as something that's inefficient for it's clear purpose. E.g. Laryngeal nerve of the giraffe. Evolution will do that on occasion. Sensory interpretations that optical illusions are based on are often optimal for the environment, and are a complement to the power of evolution if anything. Viewing something that is optimal as a failure seems like wishful thinking (though I suspect this is more of a misunderstanding of neurobiology).

Comment author: fiddlemath 03 February 2011 02:51:55PM 2 points [-]

Viewing something that is optimal as a failure seems like wishful thinking.

Actually, that seems kind of fair. Something is a "failure to X" if it doesn't achieve X; something is a "failure" if it doesn't achieve some implicit goal. You can rhetorically relabel something a "failure" by changing the context.

Vision works well in our usual habitat, so we should expect it to break down in some corner cases that we can construct: agreed. For me to argue further would be to argue the meaning of "failure" in this context, when I'm pretty sure I actually agree with you on all of the substance of our posts.

Comment author: Dr_Manhattan 03 February 2011 04:07:33PM 2 points [-]

For me to argue further would be to argue the meaning of "failure" in this context, when I'm pretty sure I actually agree with you on all of the substance of our posts.

I really do not want to argue about semantics either, but our agreed interpretation makes Niel's statement equivalent to "our visual system is not optimal for non-ancestral environments", which is highly uninteresting. I think the Dawkin's larengyal nerve example is much more interesting in this sense, since it points out body designs do not come from a sane Creator, at least in some instances (which is enough for his point).

Comment author: AstroCJ 05 February 2011 01:36:31PM 3 points [-]

Since we do not live in the ancestral environment now, I think the quotation could be just underlining how we should viscerally know our brain is going to output sub-optimal crud given certain inputs. Upvoted original.

Comment author: atucker 02 February 2011 01:51:35AM 22 points [-]

Things are only impossible until they're not.

-- Jean-Luc Picard

Comment author: MichaelGR 03 February 2011 02:53:17PM 12 points [-]

It has never mattered to me that thirty million people might think I'm wrong. The number of people who thought Hitler was right did not make him right... Why do you necessarily have to be wrong just because a few million people think you are?

-- Frank Zappa, quoted from The Real Frank Zappa Book

Comment author: David_Gerard 19 February 2011 08:24:54PM -1 points [-]

Zappa was a fantastic example of someone who kept their head firmly screwed on while simultaneously exercising his inner rampaging weirdness. Everyone should read the book.

Comment author: aausch 04 February 2011 10:05:08PM 13 points [-]

Some pirates achieved immortality by great deeds of cruelty or derring-do. Some achieved immortality by amassing great wealth. But the captain had long ago decided that he would, on the whole, prefer to achieve immortality by not dying

-- The Colour of Magic, Terry Pratchett

Comment author: NihilCredo 04 February 2011 10:40:21PM 5 points [-]

So that's where Woody Allen got it from.

Comment author: ata 04 February 2011 11:42:02PM 6 points [-]

I haven't been able to find the original source of the Woody Allen quote, but it seems "The Colour of Magic" was published in 1983, and Google Books finds some copies of the Woody Allen quote predating that.

Comment author: NihilCredo 04 February 2011 11:43:59PM 1 point [-]

Ahh, nevermind then. (I only looked it up on Wikiquote, which referenced a bio-photo-book from 1993).

Comment author: RobinZ 05 February 2011 01:48:42AM 2 points [-]

...I thought you were being ironic. o_o

Comment author: billswift 01 February 2011 07:29:20PM 13 points [-]

How emotionally entangled are you with your point of view? Test yourself - defend an opposing view, believing your life depends upon it.

-- Marc Stiegler, David's Sling

Comment author: Desrtopa 01 February 2011 08:40:59PM 6 points [-]

There seem to be separate failure conditions here though. You could fail because you're too emotionally invested in your view, or you could fail because you can spot the flaws in all the arguments for the opposing view. If your original view was actually right, then you're not at fault.

Since this can be hard to distinguish from motivated cognition, I think the exercise is questionably useful.

Comment author: Nornagest 01 February 2011 09:11:50PM *  5 points [-]

I don't think the point of the exercise is to successfully defend the opposing point of view but to make a good-faith attempt to come up with an argument for it without getting your original emotions involved. If you can conjure up a coherent argument for the opposing side (allowing for a slightly different set of priors), that's some evidence that you're looking at consequences rather than being strung along by motivated cognition. If you can't -- and this is pretty common -- that's good evidence that the opposing view has been reduced to a caricature in your mind.

It's a litmus test for color politics, in other words. Not a perfect one, but it doesn't have to be.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 02 February 2011 11:38:24AM 4 points [-]

I keep seeing insightful bits from this book (for instance, here and somewhere else that I forget). Am I correct when I say it seems worth reading as rationalist fiction?

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 09 February 2011 07:08:47PM 1 point [-]

It's very nearly one of the only pieces of rationalist fiction out there.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 February 2011 10:40:20PM 14 points [-]

On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" In one case a member of the Upper, and in the other a member of the Lower House put this question. I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

-Charles Babbage

Comment author: gwern 02 February 2011 10:49:48PM 5 points [-]
Comment author: MichaelGR 03 February 2011 02:52:24PM 15 points [-]

Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid.

-John Wayne, Sands of Iwo Jima (1949)

Comment author: MichaelGR 03 February 2011 02:50:58PM 15 points [-]

History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

-Mark Twain

Comment author: gwern 01 February 2011 05:52:07PM *  17 points [-]

"I submit that claims about God are of this latter sort. There’s simply no reason to take them more seriously than one does claims about witches or ghosts. The idea that one needs powerful philosophical theories to settle such issues I like to call the “philosophy fallacy.”

We will see that people are particularly prey to it in religious discussions, both theist and atheist alike; indeed, atheists often get trapped into doing far more, far riskier philosophy than they need."

--Georges Rey, "Meta-atheism: Religious Avowal as Self-deception" (2009)

(First version seen on http://www.strangedoctrines.com/2008/09/risky-philosophy.html but quote from an expanded paper.)

Comment author: DSimon 10 February 2011 08:20:54PM *  19 points [-]

You know in those stories where there's this immortal guy and they talk about how bored they are and how boring life is after 5000 years or whatever? I am going to call something.

I am going to call SHENANIGANS.

You know who writes those stories? MORTALS. Folks using some of their PRECIOUS, FINITE LIFE to write a made-up story in which an imaginary person keeps going on about how being immortal is actually sucky and how they're totes jealous that others get to die someday!

Ridiculous!

And kinda sad!

-- Today's Dinosaur Comic

Comment author: DSimon 02 February 2011 06:20:47PM *  27 points [-]

Kräht der Hahn am Mist, ändert sich's Wetter oder es bleibt wie's ist.

-- Common German folk saying

Translates as "If the rooster crows on the manure pile, the weather will change or stay as it is." In other words, P(W|R) = P(W) when W is uncorrelated with R.

Comment author: DSimon 02 February 2011 06:26:12PM 31 points [-]

Another good one:

Ist's zu Sylvester hell und klar, ist am nächsten Tag Neujahr.

"If it's bright and clear on New Year's Eve, the next day will be New Year's."

Comment author: bbleeker 09 February 2011 05:20:28PM 3 points [-]

Als het regent in mei, is april al voorbij. (If it rains in May, April is already past)

Comment author: D_Alex 07 February 2011 07:14:28AM 8 points [-]

I'll chip in with this Russian saying:

"It is better to be rich and healthy than to be poor and sick!"

Comment author: Kutta 07 February 2011 09:43:12AM 8 points [-]

Woody Allen had a take on it too:

Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.

Comment author: MichaelHoward 02 February 2011 11:31:14AM 51 points [-]

I will not procrastinate regarding any ritual granting immortality.

--Evil Overlord List #230

Comment author: RichardKennaway 02 February 2011 01:07:05AM 93 points [-]

At home there was a game that all the parents played with their children. It was called, What Did You See? Mara was about Dann’s age when she was first called into her father’s room one evening, where he sat in his big carved and coloured chair. He said to her, ‘And now we are going to play a game. What was the thing you liked best today?’

At first she chattered: ‘I played with my cousin . . . I was out with Shera in the garden . . . I made a stone house.’ And then he had said, ‘Tell me about the house.’ And she said, ‘I made a house of the stones that come from the river bed.’ And he said, ‘Now tell me about the stones.’ And she said, ‘They were mostly smooth stones, but some were sharp and had different shapes.’ ‘Tell me what the stones looked like, what colour they were, what did they feel like.’

And by the time the game ended she knew why some stones were smooth and some sharp and why they were different colours, some cracked, some so small they were almost sand. She knew how rivers rolled stones along and how some of them came from far away. She knew that the river had once been twice as wide as it was now. There seemed no end to what she knew, and yet her father had not told her much, but kept asking questions so she found the answers in herself. Like, ‘Why do you think some stones are smooth and round and some still sharp?’ And she thought and replied, ‘Some have been in the water a long time, rubbing against other stones, and some have only just been broken off bigger stones.’ Every evening, either her father or her mother called her in for What Did You See? She loved it. During the day, playing outside or with her toys, alone or with other children, she found herself thinking, Now notice what you are doing, so you can tell them tonight what you saw.

She had thought that the game did not change; but then one evening she was there when her little brother was first asked, What Did You See? and she knew just how much the game had changed for her. Because now it was not just What Did You See? but: What were you thinking? What made you think that? Are you sure that thought is true?

When she became seven, not long ago, and it was time for school, she was in a room with about twenty children – all from her family or from the Big Family – and the teacher, her mother’s sister, said, ‘And now the game: What Did You See?’

Most of the children had played the game since they were tiny; but some had not, and they were pitied by the ones that had, for they did not notice much and were often silent when the others said, ‘I saw . . .’, whatever it was. Mara was at first upset that this game played with so many at once was simpler, more babyish, than when she was with her parents. It was like going right back to the earliest stages of the game: ‘What did you see?’ ‘I saw a bird.’ ‘What kind of a bird?’ ‘It was black and white and had a yellow beak.’ ‘What shape of beak? Why do you think the beak is shaped like that?’

Then she saw what she was supposed to be understanding: Why did one child see this and the other that? Why did it sometimes need several children to see everything about a stone or a bird or a person?

Doris Lessing, "Mara and Dann"

Comment author: [deleted] 27 February 2011 03:21:30PM *  2 points [-]

Happily our civilization possesses two great advantages over past times : scientific knowledge and the scientific spirit. To us have been revealed secrets of life our forebears never knew. And to us has been vouchsafed a passion for truth such as the world has never seen. Other ages have sought truth from the lips of seers and prophets; our age seeks it from scientific proof. Other ages have had their saints and martyrs dauntless souls who clung to their faith with unshakable constancy. Yet our age has also its saints and martyrs heroes who can not only face death for their faith, but who can also scrap their faith when facts have proved it wrong.

--Lothrop Stoddard, The Revolt Against Civilization

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 26 February 2011 06:34:18AM 2 points [-]

Approximate quote: [You should] go in with a thesis, not a conclusion.

From a BBC program about the media and crime in Detroit. The context was the extent to which Detroit is over-reported as a high-crime city, and someone commented that the BBC had sent someone over for a reason, but they were actually looking at the situation instead of assuming they knew what they were going to see.

Comment author: lukeprog 12 February 2011 03:30:48PM *  16 points [-]

If people can't think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity, then all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible.

Paul Graham

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 12 February 2011 09:35:31AM 9 points [-]

Heed a lesson from a successful practical propagandist. If you want to persuade people that a premise they unconsciously hold is wrong, do not give it a label they will perceive as insulting! If you do this, you make them reluctant to consciously accept that they hold the premise, which will make it more difficult to argue them out of it!

This rule does not hold for conscious premises. It can be effective to make insulting labels for those.

Eric S. Raymond

(This applies no less strongly to one's own brain.)

Comment author: Nornagest 12 February 2011 01:27:05AM *  7 points [-]

On simpler solutions:

"But still you did not know the algorithm."

"Yes, but I had some idea that it was related to the Azure/Pufferfish algorithm, which in turn is related to the zeta functions that we studied at Princeton. So I just sat down and said to myself if Rudy were going to build the ultimate cryptosystem on this basis, and if Azure/Pufferfish is a simplified version of that system, then what is Arethusa? That gave me a handful of possibilities."

"And out of that handful you were able to pick the right one."

"No," Waterhouse says, "it was too hard. So I went to the church where Enoch was working, and looked through his wastebasket. "

Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon

Comment author: Perplexed 09 February 2011 07:46:50PM 1 point [-]

Disputes with men, pertinaciously obstinate in their principles, are, of all others, the most irksome; except, perhaps, those with persons entirely disingenuous, who really do not believe the opinions they defend, but engage in the controversy from affectation, from a spirit of opposition, or from a desire of showing wit and ingenuity superior to the rest of mankind. The same blind adherence to their own arguments is to be expected in both; the same contempt of their antagonists; and the same passionate vehemence, in inforcing sophistry and falsehood. And as reasoning is not the source, whence either disputant derives his tenets; it is in vain to expect, that any logic, which speaks not to the affections, will ever engage him to embrace sounder principles.

Those who have denied the reality of moral distinctions, may be ranked among the disingenuous disputants; nor is it conceivable, that any human creature could ever seriously believe, that all characters and actions were alike entitled to the affection and regard of every one. The difference, which nature has placed between one man and another, is so wide, and this difference is still so much farther widened, by education, example, and habit, that, where the opposite extremes come at once under our apprehension, there is no scepticism so scrupulous, and scarce any assurance so determined, as absolutely to deny all distinction between them. Let a man's insensibility be ever so great, he must often be touched with the images of RIGHT and WRONG; and let his prejudices be ever so obstinate, he must observe, that others are susceptible of like impressions. The only way, therefore, of converting an antagonist of this kind, is to leave him to himself. For, finding that no body keeps up the controversy with him, it is probable he will, at last, of himself, from mere weariness, come over to the side of common sense and reason.

David Hume - "Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals"

Comment author: endoself 08 February 2011 10:53:58AM *  13 points [-]

After finishing dinner, Sidney Morgenbesser decides to order dessert. The waitress tells him he has two choices: apple pie and blueberry pie. Sidney orders the apple pie. After a few minutes the waitress returns and says that they also have cherry pie at which point Morgenbesser says "In that case I'll have the blueberry pie."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_irrelevant_alternatives

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Morgenbesser

Comment author: mcandre 12 February 2011 11:55:48PM *  1 point [-]

Sidney chooses pies on the basis of popularity. Apple pie is more popular than blueberry pie. Apple pie is so popular that pie eaters have grown sick of it. They quickly gorge on the new cherry pie. When the fad dies down, they are still sick of apple pie and begin a blueberry revival. Sidney correctly predicts that blueberry will be more popular.

Comment author: Nic_Smith 08 February 2011 07:34:43AM 5 points [-]

To be sure, science is also mistrusted by those who don't like its discoveries for religious, political, ethical, or even esthetic reasons. Some thoughtful people complain that science has erased enchantment from the world. They have a point. Miracles, magic, and other fascinating impossibilities are no long much encountered except in movies. But in the light shed by the best science and scientists, everything is fascinating, and the more so the more that is known of its reality. To science, not even the bark of a tree or a drop of pond water is dull or handful of dirt banal. They all arouse awe and wonder. -- Jane Jacobs, Dark Age Ahead

Comment author: aausch 07 February 2011 04:25:37PM 18 points [-]

As they say in Discworld, we are trying to unravel the Mighty Infinite using a language which was designed to tell one another where the fresh fruit was.

-- Terry Pratchett

Comment author: TheOtherDave 07 February 2011 04:42:36PM 6 points [-]

"Language is a drum on which we beat out tunes for bears to dance to, when all the while we wish to move the stars to pity." -- Flaubert

Comment author: gwern 07 February 2011 12:48:39AM 11 points [-]

"Nor let him [the ruler] ever believe that a state can always make safe choices; on the contrary, let him think that he must make only doubtful ones; because this is in the order of things, that one never tries to avoid one inconvenience without incurring another; but prudence consists of knowing how to recognize the kinds of inconveniences, and to take the least sad for good."

--Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

Comment author: steven0461 06 February 2011 09:16:23PM 18 points [-]

Some in their discourse desire rather commendation of wit, in being able to hold all arguments, than of judgment, in discerning what is true; as if it were a praise to know what might be said, and not what should be thought.

Francis Bacon

Comment author: David_Gerard 19 February 2011 08:21:32PM 1 point [-]

It doesn't help that undergraduate philosophy has rather a lot of enumerating the history of philosophical arguments regardless of quality.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 09 February 2011 07:10:04PM 3 points [-]

I shall have to quote this a good deal more when dealing with people who chide me for not mentioning all the possible objections that philosophers consider to still be in play.

Comment author: sark 06 February 2011 10:47:02PM 1 point [-]

Well, sexual selection chose wit as the target for our intelligence, not discernment of the truth of matters of Far concern. Anybody can figure out the truth of the Near, where is the impressiveness in that? Nobody can verify Far claims, so we don't know who should impress us.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 06 February 2011 06:36:55AM 6 points [-]

"What happens when you combine organized religion and organized sports? I don’t know, but I suspect not much would change for either institution."

Scenes from a Multiverse

Comment author: PhilGoetz 06 February 2011 06:34:56AM 12 points [-]

"But can people in desperate poverty be considered to be making free choices? Many say no. So, is the choice between starving and selling one’s kidney really a choice? Yes; an easy one. One of the options is awful. To forbid organ selling is to take away the better choice. If we choose to provide an even better option to the person that would be great – but it is no solution to the problem of poverty to take away what choices the poor do have absent outside help."

Katja Grace, on Metaeuphoric, Dying for a Donation

Comment author: cwillu 06 February 2011 03:00:12AM 8 points [-]

Since so many poker opponents often decide at whim, we need to do more than just strategically analyze their actions relative to what they should be doing. We need to watch and listen and determine what they are doing.

--Mike Caro, Caro's Book of Tells

Comment author: purpleposeidon 04 February 2011 08:50:11AM 17 points [-]

The following reminded me of Arguments as Soldiers:

Statistics for the enemy. Anecdotes for the friend. -- Zach Weiner

I'm sorry to have not found his blog sooner.

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 03 February 2011 11:38:09PM 27 points [-]

Just saw on reddit a perfect accidental metaphor: jakeredfield posted this in r/gaming:

For the people that have no played Portal yet, be warned, there may be spoilers up ahead for you.

So anyway, I am a huge fan of Portal, I love everything about the game. I bought it upon release and have played through it multiple times. My friends aren't as big of gamers as me so it took them some time to get their hands on Portal. My one friend didn't have a computer capable of running Portal so I let him play on mine.

I pulled up a chair besides him and eagerly watched him play then entire time. He loved the game. I expected him to. It's an awesome game. But here comes the WTF part...(SPOILERS AHEAD)

He go to the part at the last puzzle, right before GlaDOS tries to kill you in the fire. So then, my friend is like, "Oh, so it's one of those games where you die at the end. Haha, it was a good game." And then he immediately shuts it down. I just sat there. Shocked. In awe. I couldn't believe what I just saw. He turns to me and goes, "Good game, I'd play that again."

This is the part where I just hit him and yell, "IT WASN'T OVER YET!" He was so confused. He loaded it back up to that part and couldn't figure it out. I then pointed it out to him what he needed to do from there. He eventually fully finished the game.

Imagine what would have happened if I wasn't there? How many other people do you think only experienced the game up to this part, because they didn't have someone tell them?

What makes it even more perfect is this reply by Aleitheo:

So rather than try to see if he could live or even just die in the fire he turned off the game before he even saw the "ending"?

Comment author: atucker 14 February 2011 03:34:24AM *  2 points [-]

I am going to shamelessly and totally steal this example for when talking about anti-deathism to anyone.

Seriously, thank you so much.

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 14 February 2011 04:04:51AM 1 point [-]

You're welcome. No need really to thank me. After all, I shamelessly stole it too. It was just too perfect. :)

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 04 February 2011 02:40:13PM 5 points [-]

Unfortunately, I think I saw somebody else play that section correctly before I played it myself. Still, if I had died, I would've come back at the last time I saved. That would've clued me in that I was supposed to survive, and I probably would've figured it out in one or two more tries tops.

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 03 February 2011 11:41:18PM 10 points [-]

KanadianLogik adds:

[...] Imagine if you really were Chell, and just accepted your fate....

Comment author: Aryn 05 February 2011 07:14:58PM 2 points [-]

It's possible that if there were several copies of Chell, some of them did.

Comment author: [deleted] 03 February 2011 08:35:54PM 13 points [-]

To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous.

-Confucius

Comment author: MichaelGR 03 February 2011 02:51:58PM 33 points [-]

The Company that needs a new machine tool is already paying for it.

-old Warner & Swasey ad

Comment author: MichaelGR 03 February 2011 02:51:43PM 13 points [-]

Teachers open the door. You enter by yourself.

-Chinese proverb

Comment author: sketerpot 03 February 2011 11:54:14PM 12 points [-]

Sometimes they only unlock the deadbolt, and you need a friend to help push open the door. Sometimes the door is on the top of a cliff, and you need to climb up the rope of Wikipedia to get there. And so on. A lot of people who are having trouble learning something are having trouble realizing what resources they have available.

Comment author: FiftyTwo 11 September 2011 09:26:46PM 8 points [-]

Its a bizarre feature of university life that it is very difficult to get students to take opportunities for help, even when they are obviously and explicitly provided.

Comment author: sketerpot 12 September 2011 04:55:01AM *  12 points [-]

And the reasons those students don't take opportunities for help tend to be embarrassingly pathetic. Like, so embarrassing that they avoid even thinking about it, because if they made their real reason explicit, they would be pained at how dumb it is. (I've done this sot of thing myself, more times than I'm comfortable with.)

For example, I discovered that a significant fraction of the students in a certain class were afraid to ask questions of the professor because they found him scary. Now, I know the professor in question, and he's a friendly person who wishes that his students would talk to him more -- but he has an abrupt, somewhat awkward way of speaking, and an eastern European accent. Such superficial details are apparently what leaves the biggest impression on most people.

Or there are the guys who get depressed and stop coming to class for a week or two, and then keep on not coming to class because they haven't been to class for a while, and it would be hard trying to get back up to speed. I really sympathize with these guys, but that doesn't make their reasoning any saner. (A fair number of them come in at the end of a semester to flunk their final exams. Damn it all, this is painful to watch.)

Or there are the people who won't read textbooks, or Wikipedia, or whatever, because they feel like everything ought to be covered in class well enough that they can just show up every day and get a good grade. I can not think of any good pedagogical reason why this should be so, and indeed, it usually isn't.

I could go on. There are plenty more examples. But instead I think I'll just paraphrase the not-actually-evil professor from eastern Europe. "These kids," he said. "They aren't resourceful because they have never had to be resourceful. They need more adversity in life. When I was their age, I had to bribe a local official just to get a dorm room."

Comment author: Swimmer963 30 September 2011 07:19:46PM 3 points [-]

Or there are the people who won't read textbooks, or Wikipedia, or whatever, because they feel like everything ought to be covered in class well enough that they can just show up every day and get a good grade. I can not think of any good pedagogical reason why this should be so, and indeed, it usually isn't.

I've often found that this is so. I do try to read my textbooks, at least the assigned readings, because...well, because you're supposed to, I guess. But for most of my first year classes (three anatomy courses, psych 101, microbiology) just going to class was enough. (I did of course take detailed notes, with colourful diagrams, and then study from my notes afterwards. I have now bequeathed my anatomy notes to a friend a couple of grades younger.) One possible reason why this is true for me is that I like biology-related subjects, and I've always read anything I could get my hands on, and so I arrived in university to find that I already knew at least 50% of the material.

Areas where this isn't true: English classes, history classes, etc, where there are a lot of required readings that cover material not covered in class, and where there are essays or papers to be written on material that isn't covered in class. And of course there's no rule that you can get good grades without reading textbooks. It just happens to be true sometimes, for some people.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 12 September 2011 09:35:43AM 3 points [-]

That's not "adversity", that's "solvable problems requiring initiative".

Comment author: FiftyTwo 30 September 2011 05:18:38PM 5 points [-]

My experience of students here at [prominent UK university] is that they are very unwilling to ask for help because they have never needed to do so before, and so consider asking for help as a sign of weakness/low intelligence/low status.

This makes a certain amount of sense, the people who have been able to meet entry requirements are likely in the top percentile of their subject and been the best or nearly at their school. Generally this has been the result of either natural ability or brute force work (memorising equations and examples etc) rather than acting strategically and gaining study skills such as the ability to find new sources f information or ask for help. So they either despair at the seeming impossibility of their tasks, or spend increasingly large amounts of time brute forcing the work and burn out.

It takes a lot for people to understand that needing help doesn't mean you are stupid, but that the work is hard and its supposed to be hard.

Comment author: Eneasz 03 February 2011 04:58:02AM 12 points [-]

At my mother's knee I learned to view religious worship as a practice which lures people away from their duties and pleasures on earth, and breeds in them a thirst for impossible things, the chasing of which can bring no honour or delight but only bewilderment, disappointment, and insanity.

  • K. J. Bishop, "The Etched City"

(a sentiment I think applies to all super-stimuli)

Comment deleted 03 February 2011 01:24:13AM [-]
Comment author: JoshuaZ 03 February 2011 01:28:54AM 1 point [-]

dupe (which includes citation and larger context.)

Comment author: benelliott 02 February 2011 09:05:24PM 47 points [-]

Day ends, market closes up or down, reporter looks for good or bad news respectively, and writes that the market was up on news of Intel's earnings, or down on fears of instability in the Middle East. Suppose we could somehow feed these reporters false information about market closes, but give them all the other news intact. Does anyone believe they would notice the anomaly, and not simply write that stocks were up (or down) on whatever good (or bad) news there was that day? That they would say, hey, wait a minute, how can stocks be up with all this unrest in the Middle East?

--Paul Graham

Comment author: private_messaging 28 August 2013 03:28:04PM *  3 points [-]

Well, the time Steve Ballmer announced he was to quit the Microsoft, Microsoft's stock jumped quite a bit, clearly because Ballmer quit, even though one could perhaps explain either a raise or a fall with Ballmer quitting. Expected square of a change was big from Ballmer quitting, that's for sure. Same goes for any dramatic news, such as the recent gas attack in Syria.

And yes, over the time one could tell that something is up if the stock market graph is uneventful while there's dramatic news.

Bottom line is, a causal link can exist and be inferred even when there is no correlation.

Comment author: simplyeric 04 February 2011 03:14:22PM 6 points [-]

An interesting concept...but I wonder. I bet at least some people would actually notice that. They'd see unrest in the middle east and say "hmm...oil prices didn't change the way I expected them to" or something. Sometimes you see things like "_ index rises in spite of _".

I think Graham's inference has merit: these people don't really know what's happening...but I think some people at least would notice the anomoly.

Comment author: benelliott 04 February 2011 04:43:07PM 9 points [-]

Well now I want to test this. Do we have anyone here who thinks they know a thing or two about the stock market? If so would they be amenable to an experiment?

I'm thinking that they would agree not to look at any stock price information for a day (viewing all the other news they want). At the end of the day they are presented with some possible sets of market closes, all but one of which of which are fake, and we see if they can reliably find the right one.

Comment author: Gurkenglas 28 June 2013 09:30:55PM 2 points [-]

Finding the most probable market outcome given a few possibilities and a day's news is easier than noticing by yourself that the news and the market don't fit.

Comment author: ig0r 26 February 2011 10:29:17PM 2 points [-]

I will participate if you'd like to try, there are some problems with the experiment though

Comment author: benelliott 03 March 2011 06:39:51PM 1 point [-]

I'm still interested, what changes would you suggest?

Comment author: Tesseract 02 February 2011 08:34:56PM 5 points [-]

Increasingly each year the wild predictions of science-fiction writers are made tame by the daily papers.

Robert Heinlein

Comment author: sketerpot 03 February 2011 11:48:46PM *  3 points [-]

At one point, he quite audaciously predicted that the Soviet Union was headed for collapse. If he'd lived longer, he would have seen that his prediction should have been even crazier: not only did the Soviet Union fall apart, but it did so without starting a major war, or nuking any cities.

And don't even get me started on his books where we've got interstellar travel, guided by computers that are the size of a room but barely faster than someone with a slide rule.

Comment author: sfb 02 February 2011 06:51:06PM *  6 points [-]

"Please don't hold anything back, and give me the facts" – Wen Jiabao, Chinese Premier (when meeting disgruntled people at the central complaints offices).

Comment author: beriukay 02 February 2011 06:25:30PM 5 points [-]

[Humanity] had been the mere plaything of nature, when first it crept out of uncreative void into light; but thought brought forth power and knowledge; and, clad with these, the race of man assumed dignity and authority.

-- Mary Shelley, The Last Man