Rationality Quotes: February 2011
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- Do not quote yourself.
- Do not quote comments/posts from LW.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.
Loading…
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (347)
--Teiresias to the unrelenting Oedipus, Oedipus the King 316-9, Sophocles
(Assigning a specific location to 'here' left as an exercise for the reader...)
--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.)
It's true that the question of God's existence is epistemologically fairly trivial and doesn't require its own category of justifications, and it's also true that even many atheists don't seem to notice this. But even with that in mind, it almost never actually helps in convincing people to become atheists (most theists won't respond to a crash course in Bayesian epistemology and algorithmic information theory, but they sometimes respond to careful refutation of the real reasons they believe in God), which is probably why this point is often forgotten by people who spend a lot of time arguing for atheism.
It's really epistemologically difficult to find out what people mean by God in the first case; how then can it be epistemologically trivial to judge the merits of such a hypothesis?
Difficult to pin down within a range of trivial-to-judge positions.
With, possibly, vanishingly rare exceptions.
If a given hypothesis is incoherent even to its strongest proponents, then it's not very meritorious. It's in "not even wrong" territory.
Coherence isn't necessary factor for a good theory. In artificial intelligence it's sometimes preferable to allow incoherence to have higher robustness.
Could you expand?
Choosing good priors isn't something that's epistemologically fairly trivial.
Using the majority opinion of the human race as a prior is a general strategy that you can defend rationally.
Use it as a prior all you want; but then you have to update on the (rest of the) evidence.
It's Georges Rey. I know because I sat through an entire class that he taught once. I think I also read his book, Contemporary philosophy of mind: a contentiously classical approach, during that time, but I don't recall learning anything from it.
Can someone who has actually read the paper (I don't feel like it) tell me whether it has the same upshot as the earlier version I seem to remember, viz. that people only pretend to believe in God? (It's possible I've got this mixed up with something else.)
Thanks.
It does; as I said, it's an expanded paper.
--Nicolás Gómez Dávila, Escolios a un Texto Implícito: Selección, p. 430
--Donald Knuth (see also Amdahl's law)
A premature really powerful Optimization Process is the root of all future evil.
"The first rule of code optimization: Don't."
-- Marc Stiegler, David's Sling
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.
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.
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?
I haven't read David's Sling; but I read his Earthweb and found it to be not-particularly-deep futurism (primarily presenting the idea of prediction markets).
-- Frederick Giesecke, et al, Technical Drawing, 8th ed
On similar lines:
Ancient Latin saying.
-- William Tuning, Fuzzy Bones
If you never misspell a word, you're spending too much time proofreading.
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.
That may be good advice for most people. (Or maybe not.) But me, I'm a chronic floccinaucinihilipilificationist. (It's one of my more endearing traits.) And no, I don't use a spellchecker. I don' need no steenkeeng spellchecker.
Better to teach the child the difference between programming a computer, proving a theorem, and writing an essay.
-- Robert A Heinlein, Lost Legacy
-- Frodo Baggins, conveying one of the many wise sayings that Hobbits chuck around daily. The elf he was talking with thought it was hilarious, but refused to simply agree or disagree with it.
I prefer its negation: "Go to the elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes."
Steve Omohundro, "The Nature of Self-Improving Artificial Intelligence" 2007
It's an interesting topic, but what exactly makes this a rationality quote?
Maybe it doesn't belong. But I was thinking in terms of something like rationality being an attractor. Minds, whatever their origin, if capable of self-improving, will tend toward a pattern which human economists had already identified as being at the heart of human rationality.
The rational direction to guide your own improvement is toward greater rationality. Even if you are not all that rational to begin with. That means that the characteristics we assign to modeled "rational agents" may be universal - they are not just something invented by some lackey of a capitalist patron.
Unless Omohundro's analysis is wrong and he just wrote it because he is a lackey, that is.
Some human irrationality seems adaptive. Humans apparently deceive themselves so they can manipulate others without actually lying - so as to avoid detection.
That does not directly contradict Omohundro. The quotation merely suggests that almost-rational humans will seek to self-modify in the direction of becoming less self-deceptive and better at lying. A look at the self-help literature tends to confirm Omohundro's prediction.
That leaves the question, though, as to why Natural Selection didn't take care of this 'improvement' itself. My guess is that it is a life-history, levels-of-selection, and kin-selection issue. Self-help books are purchased by adults. NS tries to optimize the whole life history. It is good for neither children nor their families that they become accomplished liars. Maybe self-deception in children has some advantages as well. Just speculating.
Are the liars going to win, though? Nature subsidises both transparency and lie detectors, for reasons to do with promoting cooperation. In the future it may get even harder to convince others of things you don't personally believe - as is dramatically portrayed in The Truth Machine.
--Arthur Guiterman
(Unless you weren't in error. Once you start awarding yourself internal karma for admitting that you were wrong, it becomes much easier to do so even when you weren't actually wrong. Of course, this is sidestepped with empiricism.)
Will_Newsome pointed out the caveat that it's only good to admit errors when actually in error. I'd add a second caveat, which is that most of the benefit from admitting an error is in the lessons learnt by retracing steps and finding where they went wrong. Each error has a specific cause - a doubt not investigated, a piece of evidence given too much or too little weight, or a bias triggered. I try to make myself stronger by identifying those causes, concretely envisioning what I should have done differently, and thinking of the reference classes where the same mistake might happen in the future.
The wording actually given in this quote avoids the problems discussed by Will_Newsome and jimrandomh: admitting error clears the score, resets it to zero. If you were wrong, this wipes out your negative score, for a net win; if you were right, it wipes out your positive score, setting you back.
I think you meant to say right instead of wrong in this bit.
True, but clearly unintentional.
A long one:
-- "Alain" (Émile Chartier) The Gods. A meditation on childhood.
Hah; I read through that entire thing expecting the punchline to be that the giants were computers.
Maybe one day they will be.
Or we will be, or they'll make paperclips of us all.
This was wasted as a point about 'gods'. The commentary on human social instincts irrespective of belief in literal gods was far more insightful.
I thought the punchline was going to be that the men were cats.
Nah, definitely dogs. They're the undisputed masters of manipulating humans in the animal kingdom.
Excepting other humans.
For most of the time I spent reading this quote, I thought the men were celebrities or demagogues and the giants were the populace.
I guess I'm far too literal-minded. The whole time I simply assumed the giants were a normal God parable. I was rather non-plussed about the whole quote until I saw "A meditation on childhood" and then my head exploded. I don't even remember being a kid anymore.
I saw it coming before I read the line that explicitly mentioned childhood.
On the next page in the book, the author mentions, "I decided to go through with the fiction of the giants, although the reader will have seen by the third line where I was leading him."
Personally, I didn't see it coming when I first read it. My first reaction was pretty much the same as Eneasz'.
Me too.
I didn't know where it was going at all until I hit the words "instead they became natural orators." It was a that point that I thought of my 17-month-old daughter. Thank you for a very timely message.
That looks like a description of one problem with support of developing countries.
(Terry Pratchett, I think.)
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.
That's... disturbing, but also weirdly compelling.
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."
I find my formulation slightly quicker to parse, but otherwise you're right.
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"
I've successfully delivered "a fire"/"afire" aloud, but it's a little tricky to time right.
A little gesturing will likely help a lot.
From Jingo, IIRC. Also I think the second line began "But set fire to him..."
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.
A. P. Dawid
Doris Lessing, "Mara and Dann"
I think some time we should have an irrationality quotes thread, kind of in the "how not to" spirit.
It's been done.
I don't think that thread serves the purpose RobinZ seems to have in mind. That one seems to be oriented at laughing at the theists, thus promoting ridicule of them and self-esteem for ourselves. It might instead be nice to have a thread of anti-rationality quotes devoted to advancing our rationality, rather than merely celebrating it.
One idea for doing this is to also use "anti- ground rules". Require that the anti-rationality quotes must come from LessWrong. You can quote only yourself or Eliezer. And, as RobinZ suggests, explain why the quotation exemplifies an error of rationality (one you have since recognized and corrected).
Do we make enough educational mistakes so that we can populate a thread with them? I suspect we do.
We have one: http://lesswrong.com/lw/b0/antirationality_quotes/
Edit: Oops, Alicorn beat me by 57 seconds.
I think such a thread should include an expectation of deconstruction - "this is wrong and this is why".
paulwl (quoted here)
ETA: I thought this had the smell of Usenet about it, and on Google Groups I found the original, written by one Alex Clark here. paulwl is actually the person he was replying to.
BTW, there's quite a bit of rationality (and irrationality) on that newsgroup on the subject of people looking for relationships (mostly men looking for women), from way back when. I don't know if 1996 predates the sort of PUA that has been talked about on LW.
Things are only impossible until they're not.
-- Jean-Luc Picard
Sometimes not even then.
Except when they really are.
-- Eliezer Yudkowsky, putting words in my other copy's mouth
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.
I disagree. MoR fits the same criteria ("shooting fish in a barrel") as OB/LW.
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!
He is a clever guy. Be carefull!
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.)
-- Aristotle
"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
I love this quote, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't describe it as "rational".
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)
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.
I don't understand this one.
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.
-- Douglas Hofstadter
Insanity will prevail when sane men do nothing? (Apologies to Edmund Burke)
I think this adaptation is much more precise than the original.
-- George Orwell, 1984
--The French Revolution: a history, by Thomas Carlyle; as quoted by Mencius Moldbug
There is no greater joy than riding the words of Thomas Carlyle.
He may not always be correct (although his point above is a blow of hard-hitting truth as great as any ever written) but his phrasing, his metaphors, his analogy, are all magnificent.
But ... but ... what about bankruptcies induced by a liquidity crunch -- the kind the political elite's propagandists have have been telling me entitle a "too big to fail" company to receive perpetual government assistance?
In those cases, bankruptcy wouldn't suck up falsehoods, would it?
No. But I think you* are guilty of affirming the consequent. If something is false, then it will end in bankruptcy - but that does not logically imply that everything ending in bankruptcy was false. So something true could still end in bankruptcy (for whatever reason, like a liquidity crunch).
* Or Carlyle, I suppose, but given the choice between accusing a famous thinker of an elementary fallacy and a quick off-the-cuff Internet comment, I'd rather accuse the latter.
Well, I don't know. The sort of gun you had before modern precision machining, 4.2 would be good enough, maybe 4.3 at a pinch.
--Evil Overlord List #230
"Everything works by magick; science represents a small domain of magick where coincidences have a relatively high probability of occurrence."
Does this merely call attention to the high probability of the existence of unknown unknowns, or does it promote map-territory confusion?
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.
I like the quote, but I downvoted. An upvote to the first person to identify why.
Godwin's Law violation?
The fact that it wasn't formatted as a
?
Because of the "an upvote to whoever can identify the author"?
It's not about rationality?
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?
Or perhaps that they believed they had a mistress, whether they did or didn't?
</joke>
b) fits in better with the reign of terror metaphor.
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.
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.
Ronald DeWolf. The son of L. Ron Hubbard.
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).
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'.
Marcus Garvey. I think it works better in this longer form.
-- 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.
Another good one:
"If it's bright and clear on New Year's Eve, the next day will be New Year's."
-- Mary Shelley, The Last Man
"Please don't hold anything back, and give me the facts" – Wen Jiabao, Chinese Premier (when meeting disgruntled people at the central complaints offices).
"Paper clips are gregarious by nature, and solitary ones tend to look very, very depressed." - dwardu
Robert Heinlein
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.
--Paul Graham
-Charles Babbage
Dupe
Upvoted. I didn't know it was already posted, I've read quite a few of these quote threads but never commented before or noticed that one.
What's the protocol for this? Should I delete the post?
I think you just accept quietly your downvotes or lack of upvotes, and remember to search next time.
(Also, Clippy - nice try.)
I did search but rather lazily (just entered the text and logically nothing came up). But that was very sloppy, I should have searched for "Charles Babbage" and skimmed the quotes that came up.
-- Paul Krugman
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.
dupe (which includes citation and larger context.)
-Karl Popper
Is his philosophy rubbish (even relative to other philosophy) or is it just a problem with him being a Nazi?
I'm not sure what Popper's motivation for saying that was, but I've read a bit of Heidegger and I felt the same way afterward.
I once told a university friend of mine, who was majoring in modern philosophy, that Heidegger was the most empty and nonsensical philosopher I had encountered in high school. He blamed this on translation difficulties and my Marxist teacher, and offered to guide me through a selected reading of Sein und Zeit; an offer on which I took him up.
We called it quits (in a friendly manner) after five evenings of heated arguing over whether it was even intellectually permissible to use half of the words Heidegger was using, and I left with the judgment that Heidegger was raping the German language.
Here's another Popper quote on Heidegger. No points for guessing how Popper took this (as is clear from the surrounding context):
--"The Unknown Xenophanes", The World of Parmenides, Karl Popper
I think both. But mostly I like this quote because it's hilarious.
That it is. :D
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.)
Relevant old LW post: Tolerate tolerance.
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?"
"A witty saying proves nothing" --Voltaire
That's been posted (a few times) before. Though it may be worth repeating.
(a sentiment I think applies to all super-stimuli)
Transcribed from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAD25s53wmE
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.
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>
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).
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.
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).
-Mark Twain
-Chinese proverb
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.
-old Warner & Swasey ad
-John Wayne, Sands of Iwo Jima (1949)
-- Frank Zappa, quoted from The Real Frank Zappa Book
-- Seth Lloyd
-Confucius
~ garcia1000, Witchhunt game
But unlike sex you shouldn't change positions just for fun and novelty.
Just saw on reddit a perfect accidental metaphor: jakeredfield posted this in r/gaming:
What makes it even more perfect is this reply by Aleitheo:
KanadianLogik adds: