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  • Do not quote yourself.
  • Do not quote comments/posts from LW.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)

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: 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: ata 01 February 2011 08:25:38PM *  13 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 02 February 2011 03:29:10AM -2 points [-]

It's true that the question of God's existence is epistemologically fairly trivial and doesn't require its own category of justifications

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?

Comment author: shokwave 02 February 2011 09:48:37AM 11 points [-]

Difficult to pin down within a range of trivial-to-judge positions.

Comment author: false_vacuum 03 February 2011 11:26:15PM 0 points [-]

With, possibly, vanishingly rare exceptions.

Comment author: DSimon 02 February 2011 06:09:40PM 9 points [-]

If a given hypothesis is incoherent even to its strongest proponents, then it's not very meritorious. It's in "not even wrong" territory.

Comment author: ChristianKl 03 February 2011 01:05:35AM -1 points [-]

Coherence isn't necessary factor for a good theory. In artificial intelligence it's sometimes preferable to allow incoherence to have higher robustness.

Comment author: NihilCredo 03 February 2011 08:00:11AM 2 points [-]

Could you expand?

Comment author: ChristianKl 03 February 2011 01:04:09AM -2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: komponisto 03 February 2011 03:44:59AM 4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: false_vacuum 03 February 2011 11:57:06PM 0 points [-]

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.)

Comment author: gwern 04 February 2011 12:31:31AM 2 points [-]

It's Georges Rey.

Thanks.

whether it has the same upshot

It does; as I said, it's an expanded paper.

Comment author: gwern 01 February 2011 06:00:54PM 24 points [-]

"After solving a problem, humanity imagines that it finds in analogous solutions the key to all problems.
Every authentic solution brings in its wake a train of grotesque solutions."

--Nicolás Gómez Dávila, Escolios a un Texto Implícito: Selección, p. 430

Comment author: gwern 01 February 2011 06:03:48PM 35 points [-]

"Programmers waste enormous amounts of time thinking about, or worrying about, the speed of noncritical parts of their programs, and these attempts at efficiency actually have a strong negative impact when debugging and maintenance are considered.
We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time; premature optimization is the root of all evil."

--Donald Knuth (see also Amdahl's law)

Comment author: sfb 02 February 2011 06:55:56PM 12 points [-]

A premature really powerful Optimization Process is the root of all future evil.

Comment author: CronoDAS 02 February 2011 11:53:38PM 6 points [-]

"The first rule of code optimization: Don't."

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: kpreid 02 February 2011 08:02:47PM *  0 points [-]

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).

Comment author: billswift 01 February 2011 07:45:56PM 25 points [-]

Speed is not attained by hurrying; it is an unsought by-product of intelligent and continuous work.

-- Frederick Giesecke, et al, Technical Drawing, 8th ed

Comment author: RichardKennaway 03 February 2011 03:00:57PM 1 point [-]

On similar lines:

Festina lente.

Ancient Latin saying.

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: false_vacuum 04 February 2011 12:23:09AM 0 points [-]

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.

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: billswift 01 February 2011 07:55:18PM 14 points [-]

Too broad a viewpoint, too philosophical an outlook paralyzes the will.

-- Robert A Heinlein, Lost Legacy

Comment author: sketerpot 02 February 2011 05:01:00AM 17 points [-]

Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes.

-- 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.

Comment author: mwengler 02 February 2011 08:12:58PM 4 points [-]

I prefer its negation: "Go to the elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes."

Comment author: Perplexed 01 February 2011 08:18:41PM 5 points [-]

One might expect self-improving systems to be highly unpredictable because the properties of the current version might change in the next version. Our analysis will instead show that self-improvement acts to create predictable regularities. It builds on the intellectual foundations of microeconomics, the science of preference and choice in the face of uncertainty. The basic theory was created by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern in 1944 for situations with objective uncertainty and was later extended by Savage and Anscombe and Aumann to situations with subjective uncertainty. Our analysis shows that while the preferences of self-improving systems will depend on their origins, they will act on those preferences in predictable ways. Repeated self-improvement brings intelligent agents closer to an ideal that economists sometimes call “Homo Economicus”. Ironically, human behavior is not well described by this ideal and the field of “behavioral economics” has emerged in recent years to study how humans actually behave. The classical economic theory is much more applicable to self-improving systems because they will discover and eliminate their own irrationalities in ways that humans cannot.

Steve Omohundro, "The Nature of Self-Improving Artificial Intelligence" 2007

Comment author: gwern 01 February 2011 11:40:20PM 3 points [-]

It's an interesting topic, but what exactly makes this a rationality quote?

Comment author: Perplexed 01 February 2011 11:56:15PM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: timtyler 02 February 2011 12:25:31AM 1 point [-]

Some human irrationality seems adaptive. Humans apparently deceive themselves so they can manipulate others without actually lying - so as to avoid detection.

It may be that parts of our unconscious mind are well aware of many of our deceptions, and it is only our conscious mind that is fooled. Our conscious minds may even be like the public relations department of a corporation, whose main purpose is to present a certain coherent image to the outside, and not to make key corporate policy decisions. - source

Comment author: Perplexed 02 February 2011 12:56:23AM 3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: timtyler 02 February 2011 09:38:04AM *  2 points [-]

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.

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.

Comment author: benelliott 01 February 2011 08:28:48PM 13 points [-]

Admitting error clears the score and proves you wiser than before.

--Arthur Guiterman

Comment author: Will_Newsome 02 February 2011 03:30:33AM *  3 points [-]

(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.)

Comment author: jimrandomh 02 February 2011 04:06:04AM 11 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Pavitra 02 February 2011 07:25:42PM *  5 points [-]

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.

Comment author: benelliott 03 February 2011 07:55:48PM 2 points [-]

if you were wrong, it wipes out your positive score, setting you back.

I think you meant to say right instead of wrong in this bit.

Comment author: false_vacuum 04 February 2011 12:28:40AM 1 point [-]

True, but clearly unintentional.

Comment author: Costanza 01 February 2011 09:31:17PM *  54 points [-]

A long one:

. . . once upon a time men lived among the giants, who were like themselves but far more powerful, and these giants always had a supply of bread, fruit, milk, and all that was necessary to sustain life, which they must have acquired in ways that cost them little, for they would always give away their goods to whoever knew how to please them. And the giants would also carry them wherever they wanted to go, provided they asked in the proper way. So it came about that men never thought of working, nor of walking, nor of building wagons or ships; instead they became natural orators, and spent all of their time watching the giants, figuring out what would please or displease them, smiling at them or imploring them with tears in their eyes; or else simply pronouncing the necessary words, which had to be memorized exactly, though they had no understanding of the changes of humor that would come over the giants, their brusque refusals, or their sudden willingness. Now, if some man, in those days, had tried to get something for himself by his own industry, they would have laughed him to scorn; for the results of his labor would have been puny beside the immense provisions the giants had amassed; and besides with one false step the giants could easily have crushed those little beginnings of labor out of existence. That is why all human wisdom came down to knowing how to speak and how to persuade; and, rather than move things about with great effort, men chose to learn what words it would take to get one of the giants to do their moving. In short, their main business, or rather their only business, was to please, and above all not to displease, their incomprehensible masters, who seemed nevertheless to be charged with nourishing them and housing them and transporting them, and who eventually carried out their duties, provided they were prayed to. This kind of existence, in which men never knew whether they were the masters or the slaves, lasted for a long time, so that the habit of asking, of hoping, of counting on those stronger than themselves left indelible traces in human nature. . . . That is why, as if they were still waiting for the return of the giants, men do not forget to pray and make offerings, though no giant has ever shown himself . . .

-- "Alain" (Émile Chartier) The Gods. A meditation on childhood.

Comment author: gwern 01 February 2011 09:46:40PM 6 points [-]

Hah; I read through that entire thing expecting the punchline to be that the giants were computers.

Comment author: Costanza 01 February 2011 09:52:13PM 3 points [-]

Maybe one day they will be.

Or we will be, or they'll make paperclips of us all.

Comment author: wedrifid 02 February 2011 12:18:00AM 14 points [-]

This was wasted as a point about 'gods'. The commentary on human social instincts irrespective of belief in literal gods was far more insightful.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 02 February 2011 02:06:20AM 21 points [-]

I thought the punchline was going to be that the men were cats.

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 02 February 2011 05:45:27PM 8 points [-]

Nah, definitely dogs. They're the undisputed masters of manipulating humans in the animal kingdom.

Comment author: wnoise 03 February 2011 05:36:02AM 12 points [-]

Excepting other humans.

Comment author: AngryParsley 02 February 2011 10:44:02AM *  2 points [-]

For most of the time I spent reading this quote, I thought the men were celebrities or demagogues and the giants were the populace.

Comment author: Eneasz 02 February 2011 06:55:06PM 14 points [-]

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.

Comment author: CronoDAS 02 February 2011 11:46:21PM 3 points [-]

I saw it coming before I read the line that explicitly mentioned childhood.

Comment author: Costanza 03 February 2011 12:15:02AM *  4 points [-]

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'.

Comment author: false_vacuum 04 February 2011 12:32:28AM 0 points [-]

Me too.

Comment author: SRStarin 03 February 2011 05:21:53PM 6 points [-]

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.

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

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: NihilCredo 03 February 2011 07:35:56AM 0 points [-]

A little gesturing will likely help a lot.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 02 February 2011 11:54:21PM *  0 points [-]

From Jingo, IIRC. Also I think the second line began "But set fire to him..."

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: Jayson_Virissimo 02 February 2011 12:10:49AM *  17 points [-]

Statistics is applied philosophy of science.

A. P. Dawid

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: Daniel_Burfoot 02 February 2011 01:19:25AM 7 points [-]

I think some time we should have an irrationality quotes thread, kind of in the "how not to" spirit.

Comment author: Alicorn 02 February 2011 01:28:55AM 8 points [-]
Comment author: Perplexed 03 February 2011 02:49:09PM *  8 points [-]

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.

Comment author: ata 02 February 2011 01:29:52AM *  4 points [-]

We have one: http://lesswrong.com/lw/b0/antirationality_quotes/

Edit: Oops, Alicorn beat me by 57 seconds.

Comment author: RobinZ 02 February 2011 01:47:55AM 11 points [-]

I think such a thread should include an expectation of deconstruction - "this is wrong and this is why".

Comment author: RichardKennaway 02 February 2011 01:41:35AM *  15 points [-]

People who have been living with serious problems for a long time find it hard to imagine that there's been a solution within their reach all along. For the short term, it's easier to go on putting up with the problem than it is to change one's expectations.

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.

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

Things are only impossible until they're not.

-- Jean-Luc Picard

Comment author: TheOtherDave 02 February 2011 02:51:27AM 18 points [-]

Sometimes not even then.

Comment author: sketerpot 03 February 2011 10:15:16PM 1 point [-]

Except when they really are.

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

He is a clever guy. Be carefull!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Kazuo_Thow 02 February 2011 06:05:08AM 17 points [-]

Apathy on the individual level translates into insanity at the mass level.

-- Douglas Hofstadter

Comment author: TheOtherDave 02 February 2011 02:16:02PM 9 points [-]

Insanity will prevail when sane men do nothing? (Apologies to Edmund Burke)

Comment author: Kazuo_Thow 02 February 2011 05:54:54PM 3 points [-]

I think this adaptation is much more precise than the original.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 02 February 2011 07:21:19AM *  44 points [-]

In the past, also, war was one of the main instruments by which human societies were kept in touch with physical reality.

(...)

In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four.

-- George Orwell, 1984

Comment author: gwern 02 February 2011 06:21:47PM 13 points [-]

"Great is Bankruptcy: the great bottomless gulf into which all Falsehoods, public and private, do sink, disappearing; whither, from the first origin of them, they were all doomed. For Nature is true and not a lie. No lie you can speak or act but it will come, after longer or shorter circulation, like a Bill drawn on Nature's Reality, and be presented there for payment, - with the answer, No effects.

Pity only that it often had so long a circulation: that the original forger were so seldom he who bore the final smart of it! Lies, and the burden of evil they bring, are passed on; shifted from back to back, and from rank to rank; and so land ultimately on the dumb lowest rank, who with spade and mattock, with sore heart and empty wallet, daily come in contact with reality, and can pass the cheat no further.
[...]
But with a Fortunatus' Purse in his pocket, through what length of time might not almost any Falsehood last! Your Society, your Household, practical or spiritual Arrangement, is untrue, unjust, offensive to the eye of God and man. Nevertheless its hearth is warm, its larder well replenished: the innumerable Swiss of Heaven, with a kind of Natural loyalty, gather round it; will prove, by pamphleteering, musketeering, that it is a truth; or if not an unmixed (unearthly, impossible) Truth, then better, a wholesomely attempered one, (as wind is to the shorn lamb), and works well.

Changed outlook, however, when purse and larder grow empty! Was your Arrangement so true, so accordant to Nature's ways, then how, in the name of wonder, has Nature, with her infinite bounty, come to leave it famishing there? To all men, to all women and all children, it is now indubitable that your Arrangement was false. Honour to Bankruptcy; ever righteous on the great scale, though in detail it is so cruel! Under all Falsehoods it works, unweariedly mining. No Falsehood, did it rise heaven-high and cover the world, but Bankruptcy, one day, will sweep it down, and make us free of it."

--The French Revolution: a history, by Thomas Carlyle; as quoted by Mencius Moldbug

Comment author: NMJablonski 02 February 2011 08:45:30PM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: SilasBarta 03 February 2011 08:02:13PM 0 points [-]

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?

Comment author: gwern 03 February 2011 11:21:49PM 5 points [-]

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.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 02 February 2011 11:03:39PM 3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: CronoDAS 03 February 2011 07:25:10PM 2 points [-]
Comment author: Nic_Smith 02 February 2011 07:48:24AM 6 points [-]

People think of the future as something other people do, But there's something weirder about a society where people don't think about the future. -- Peter Thiel

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

Godwin's Law violation?

Comment author: komponisto 02 February 2011 08:33:15PM 0 points [-]

The fact that it wasn't formatted as a

quote

?

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

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

Comment author: false_vacuum 04 February 2011 12:58:01AM 0 points [-]

It's not about rationality?

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

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

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

Ronald DeWolf. The son of L. Ron Hubbard.

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: 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: 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: 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

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: 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: 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: 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: [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: [deleted] 02 February 2011 11:13:24PM 0 points [-]

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?

Comment author: gwern 02 February 2011 11:38:55PM 2 points [-]

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.)

Comment author: [deleted] 03 February 2011 08:42:58PM *  0 points [-]

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.

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 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: 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: wedrifid 03 February 2011 05:31:51AM 0 points [-]

Is his philosophy rubbish (even relative to other philosophy) or is it just a problem with him being a Nazi?

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 03 February 2011 06:02:54AM 3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: NihilCredo 03 February 2011 07:09:04AM 9 points [-]

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.

Comment author: gwern 04 February 2011 12:40:32AM *  2 points [-]

Here's another Popper quote on Heidegger. No points for guessing how Popper took this (as is clear from the surrounding context):

"'I did not understand a word; but I know: this is philosophy' was the deep conviction of a highly gifted young physicist after he had heard Martin Heidegger speak."

--"The Unknown Xenophanes", The World of Parmenides, Karl Popper

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 03 February 2011 06:04:05AM 5 points [-]

I think both. But mostly I like this quote because it's hilarious.

Comment author: wedrifid 03 February 2011 06:11:29AM 0 points [-]

That it is. :D

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

"A witty saying proves nothing" --Voltaire

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

Wise men create proverbs, and fools repeat them.

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

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

-Mark Twain

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: 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 02:52:24PM 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 02:53:17PM 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: 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: [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: 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: Jack 03 February 2011 11:08:42PM 20 points [-]

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

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

KanadianLogik adds:

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