Rationality Quotes: April 2011

6 Post author: benelliott 04 April 2011 09:55AM

You all know the rules:

  • 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  • Do not quote yourself.
  • Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB.
  • No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.

Comments (384)

Comment author: Alicorn 07 April 2011 03:08:53AM *  73 points [-]

When confronting something which may be either a windmill or an evil giant, what question should you be asking?

There are some who ask, "If we do nothing, and that is an evil giant, can we afford to be wrong?" These people consider themselves to be brave and vigilant.

Some ask "If we attack it wrongly, can we afford to pay to replace a windmill?" These people consider themselves cautious and pragmatic.

Still others ask, "With the cost of being wrong so high in either case, shouldn't we always definitively answer the 'windmill vs. giant' question before we act?" And those people consider themselves objective and wise.

But only a tiny few will ask, "Isn't the fact that we're giving equal consideration to the existence of evil giants and windmills a warning sign of insanity in ourselves?"

It's hard to find out what these people consider themselves, because they never get invited to parties.

-- PartiallyClips, "Windmill"

Comment author: JGWeissman 07 April 2011 03:13:04AM 16 points [-]

But only a tiny few will ask, "Isn't the fact that we're giving equal consideration to the existence of evil giants and windmills a warning sign of insanity in ourselves?"

And then there's the fact that we are giving much more consideration to the existence of evil giants than to the existence of good giants.

Comment author: [deleted] 07 April 2011 05:36:49AM 7 points [-]

Nancy Lebovitz came across this too.

Comment author: Alicorn 07 April 2011 05:49:14PM 4 points [-]

Well, I guess that's information about how many people click links and upvote the comments that contained them based on the quality of the linked content.

Comment author: JGWeissman 07 April 2011 05:55:24PM 5 points [-]

Not to argue that transcribing the text of the comic isn't valuable (I do actually appreciate it), but it's also information about how many people go back and vote on comments from posts imported from OB.

Comment author: benelliott 07 April 2011 11:09:23PM 1 point [-]

And about how much more readers quotes threads seem to get compared with everything else.

Comment author: ZoneSeek 09 April 2011 12:54:09AM 5 points [-]

I thought the correct response should be "Is the thing in fact a giant or a windmill?" Rather than considering which way our maps should be biased, what's the actual territory?

I do tech support, and often get responses like "I think so," and I usually respond with "Let's find out."

Comment author: Nornagest 09 April 2011 01:00:14AM 6 points [-]

Giant/windmill differentiation is not a zero-cost operation.

Comment author: shokwave 09 April 2011 01:39:00AM 2 points [-]

In the "evil giant vs windmill" question, the prior probability of it being an evil giant is vanishingly close to zero, and the prior probability of it being a windmill is pretty much one minus the chance that it's an evil giant. Spending effort discovering the actual territory when every map ever shows it's a windmill sounds like a waste of effort.

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 09 April 2011 01:41:44AM 3 points [-]

What about a chunk of probability for the case of where it's neither giant nor windmill?

Comment author: shokwave 09 April 2011 02:40:47AM *  3 points [-]

Very few things barring the evil giant have the ability to imitate a windmill. I did leave some wiggle room with

prior probability of it being a windmill is pretty much one minus the chance that it's an evil giant

because I wished to allow for the chance it may be a bloody great mimic.

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 09 April 2011 06:29:08AM 11 points [-]

A missile silo disguised as a windmill? A helicopter in an unfortunate position? An odd and inefficient form of rotating radar antenna? A shuttle in launch position? (if one squints, they might think it's a broken windmill with the vanes having fallen off or something)

These are all just off the top of my head. Remember, if we're talking about someone who tends to, when they see a windmill, be unsure whether it's a windmill or an evil giant, there's probably a reasonable chance that they tend to get confused by other objects too, right? :)

Comment author: shokwave 09 April 2011 06:31:45AM 5 points [-]

You are right! Even I, firmly settled in the fourth camp, was tricked by the false dichotomy of windmill and evil giant.

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 09 April 2011 06:41:11AM 3 points [-]

To be fair, there's also the possibility that someone disguised a windmill as an evil giant. ;)

Comment author: benelliott 10 April 2011 11:04:59AM 4 points [-]

A good giant?

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 10 April 2011 04:18:26PM 8 points [-]

Sure, but I wouldn't give a "good giant" really any more probability than an "evil giant". Both fall into the "completely negligible" hole. :)

Though, as we all know, if we do find one, the correct action to take is to climb up so that one can stand on its shoulders. :)

Comment author: benelliott 10 April 2011 04:54:37PM 4 points [-]

I thought we were listing anything at least as plausible as the evil giant hypothesis. I have no information as the morality distribution of giants in general so I use maximum entropy and assign 'evil giant' and 'good giant' equal probability.

Comment author: ata 10 April 2011 06:23:27PM *  10 points [-]

Given complexity of value, 'evil giant' and 'good giant' should not be weighted equally; if we have no specific information about the morality distribution of giants, then as with any optimization process, 'good' is a much, much smaller target than 'evil' (if we're including apparently-human-hostile indifference).

Unless we believe them to be evolutionarily close to humans, or to have evolved under some selection pressures similar to those that produced morality, etc., in which we can do a bit better than a complexity prior for moral motivations.

(For more on this, check out my new blog, Overcoming Giants.)

Comment author: TheOtherDave 10 April 2011 04:32:56PM 0 points [-]

Which can be fun to do with a windmill, also.

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 10 April 2011 04:34:50PM 1 point [-]

Since when do windmills have shoulders? :)

Comment author: wedrifid 09 April 2011 08:34:39AM *  3 points [-]

Or, possibly, a great big fan! In fact with some (unlikely) designs it would be impossible to tell whether it was a fan or a windmill without knowledge of what is on the other end of the connected power lines.

Comment author: JGWeissman 09 April 2011 01:23:07AM 2 points [-]

I thought the correct response should be "Is the thing in fact a giant or a windmill?"

Do you consider yourself "objective and wise"?

Comment author: ZoneSeek 10 April 2011 03:45:39AM 2 points [-]

I'd consider myself puzzled. Unidientified object, is it a threat, a potential asset, some kind of Black Swan? Might need to do something even without positive identification. Will probably need to do something to get a better read on the thing.

Comment author: James_K 07 April 2011 05:24:48AM 2 points [-]

That is truly incredible, I regret only that I have but one upvote to give.

Comment author: wedrifid 07 April 2011 04:16:09AM 1 point [-]

Best quote I've seen in a long time!

Comment author: DanielVarga 04 April 2011 09:06:57PM 63 points [-]

It is not really a quote, but a good quip from an otherwise lame recent internet discussion:

Matt: Ok, for all of the people responding above who admit to not having a soul, I think this means that it is morally ok for me to do anything I want to you, just as it is morally ok for me to turn off my computer at the end of the day. Some of us do have souls, though.

Igor: Matt - I agree that people who need a belief in souls to understand the difference between killing a person and turning off a computer should just continue to believe in souls.

Comment author: David_Gerard 05 April 2011 09:33:24AM 8 points [-]

This is, of course, pretty much the right answer to anyone who asserts that without God, they could just kill anyone they wanted.

Comment author: David_Gerard 05 April 2011 04:49:35PM 6 points [-]
Comment author: Mycroft65536 04 April 2011 02:03:38PM 45 points [-]

Luck is statistics taken personally.

Penn Jellete

Comment author: HonoreDB 04 April 2011 05:19:36PM 3 points [-]

Upvoted. Also, Jillette.

Comment author: Nominull 04 April 2011 01:35:51PM *  43 points [-]

On the plus side, bad things happening to you does not mean you are a bad person. On the minus side, bad things will happen to you even if you are a good person. In the end you are just another victim of the motivationless malice of directed acyclic causal graphs.

-Nobilis RPG 3rd edition

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 04 April 2011 04:22:09PM 7 points [-]

...that was written by a Less Wrong reader. Or if not, someone who independently reinvented things to well past the point where I want to talk to them. Do you know the author?

Comment author: JoshuaZ 04 April 2011 04:29:21PM 9 points [-]

The author of most of the Nobilis work is Jenna K. Moran. I'm unsure if this remark is independent of LW or not. The Third Edition (where that quote is from) was published this year, so it is possible that LW influenced it.

Comment author: HonoreDB 04 April 2011 05:36:14PM *  4 points [-]

Heh, I clicked the link to see when she took over Nobilis from Rebecca Borgstrom, only to find that she took over more than that from her.

Edit: Also, serious memetic hazard warning with regard to her fiction blog, which is linked from the article.

Comment author: novalis 04 April 2011 08:57:02PM *  22 points [-]

I'm not sure it's a memetic hazard, but this post is one of the most Hofstadterian things outside of Hofstadter

Until this moment, I had always assumed that Eliezer had read 100% of all fiction.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 05 April 2011 11:28:59PM 8 points [-]

Or just someone else who read Pearl, no?

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 06 April 2011 03:32:43AM *  5 points [-]

...that was written by a Less Wrong reader. Or if not, someone who independently reinvented things to well past the point where I want to talk to them. Do you know the author?

Hasn't using DAGs to talk about causality long been a staple of the philosophy and computer science of causation? The logical positivist philosopher Hans Reichenbach used directed acyclic graphs to depict causal relationships between events in his book The Direction of Time (1956). (See, e.g., p. 37.)

A little searching online also turned up this 1977 article in Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. From p. 72:

When a set of cause and effect relationships between states is specified, the resulting structure is a network, or directed acyclic graph of states.

That article came out around the time of Pearl's first papers, and it doesn't cite him. Had his ideas already reached that level of saturation?

ETA: I've looked a little more closely at the 1977 paper, which is entitled "Problems in the Design of Knowledge Bases for Medical Consultation". It appears to completely lack the idea of performing surgery on the DAGs, though I may have missed something. Here is a longer quote from the paper (p. 72):

Many states may occur simultaneously in any disease process. A state thus defined may be viewed as a qualitative restriction on a state variable as used in control systems theory. It does not correspond to one of the mutually exclusive states that could be used to describe a probabilistic system.

[...]

When a set of cause and effect relationships between states is specified, the resulting structure is a network, or directed acyclic graph of states.

The mappings between nodes n_i of the causal net are of n_i -- a_{ij} --> n_j where a_{ij} is the strength of causation (interpreted in terms of its frequency of occurrence) and n_i and n_j are states which are summarized by English language statements. This rule is interpreted as: state n_i causes state n_j, independent of other events, with frequency a_{ij}. Starting states are also assigned a frequency measure indicating a prior or starting frequency. The levels of causation are represented by numerical values, fractions between zero and one, which correspond to qualitative ranges such as: sometimes, often, usually, or always.

So, when it comes to demystifying causation, there is still a long distance from merely using DAGs to using DAGs in the particularly insightful way that Pearl does.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 11 April 2011 01:35:51AM *  8 points [-]

Hi, you might want to consider this paper:

http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/soc/class/soc952/Wright/Wright_The%20Method%20of%20Path%20Coefficients.pdf

This paper is remarkable not only because it correctly formalizes causation in linear models using DAGs, but also that it gives a method for connecting causal and observational quantities in a way that's still in use today. (The method itself was proposed in 1923, I believe). Edit: apparently in 1920-21, with earliest known reference apparently dating back to 1918.

Using DAGs for causality certainly predates Pearl. Identifying "randomization on X" with "dividing by P(x | pa(x))" might be implicit in fairly old papers also. Again, this idea predates Pearl.

There's always more to the story than one insightful book.

Comment author: cousin_it 11 April 2011 09:22:14AM *  4 points [-]

Good find, thanks. The handwritten equations are especially nice.

Ilya, it looks you're the perfect person to write an introductory LW post about causal graphs. We don't have any good intro to the topic showing why it is important and non-obvious (e.g. the smoking/tar/cancer example). I'm willing to read drafts, but given your credentials I think it's not necessary :-)

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 07 April 2011 06:03:06AM 4 points [-]

The point is that it's not commonly internalized to the point where someone will correctly use DAG as a synonym for "universe".

Comment author: wedrifid 10 April 2011 08:36:49AM 4 points [-]

The point is that it's not commonly internalized to the point where someone will correctly use DAG as a synonym for "universe".

Synonym? Not just 'capable of being used to perfectly represent', but an actual literal synonym? That's a remarkable claim. I'm not saying I outright don't believe it but it is something I would want to see explained in detail first.

Would reading Pearl (competently) be sufficient to make someone use the term DAG correctly in that sense?

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 07 April 2011 05:41:52PM *  3 points [-]

The point is that it's not commonly internalized to the point where someone will correctly use DAG as a synonym for "universe".

All that I see in the quote is that the DAG is taken to determine what happens to you in some unanalyzed sense. You often hear similar statements saying that the cold equations of physics determine your fate, but the speaker is not necessarily thinking of "equations of physics" as synonymous with "universe".

Comment author: thomblake 07 April 2011 08:38:54PM 3 points [-]

Seriously, she seems pretty awesome. link to Johns Hopkins profile

Comment author: David_Gerard 04 April 2011 04:35:35PM *  2 points [-]

Or if not, someone who independently reinvented things to well past the point where I want to talk to them.

The memes are getting out there! (Hopefully.)

Comment author: Larks 05 April 2011 01:19:13PM 7 points [-]

No, hopefully they were re-discovered. We can improve our publicity skills, but we can't make ideas easier to independantly re-invent.

Comment author: Vaniver 05 April 2011 05:00:02PM 2 points [-]

No, hopefully they were re-discovered. We can improve our publicity skills, but we can't make ideas easier to independantly re-invent.

Really? If meme Z is the result of meme X and Y colliding, then it seems like spreading X and Y makes it easier to independently re-invent Z.

Comment author: Larks 05 April 2011 05:11:14PM 1 point [-]

Yes - by 'independently' I mean 'unaffected by any publicity work we might do'.

Comment author: spriteless 08 April 2011 10:36:47PM 1 point [-]
Comment author: CronoDAS 04 April 2011 11:29:10PM 34 points [-]

From a forum signature:

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." --Psalm 14:1

It is a fool's prerogative to utter truths that no one else will speak. --Neil Gaiman, Sandman 3:3:6

Comment author: gwern 09 April 2011 07:26:04PM 7 points [-]

"It has always been the prerogative of children & half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit, & the emperor remains an emperor."

Also Neil Gaiman.

Comment author: David_Gerard 05 April 2011 09:27:30AM 3 points [-]

Even my theist girlfriend laughed out loud at that one :-)

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 09 April 2011 06:50:05AM 0 points [-]

I'd suggest, however, that one who is wise had better be at least better than a fool at discerning truths, or the one who is wise isn't all that wise.

In other words, of a fool is better than a wise person at finding truths no one else can find, then there's a serious problem with our notions of foolishness and wisdom.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 12 April 2011 01:17:01AM 2 points [-]

No idea if it's what Neil Gaiman meant, but the quote can be "rescued" by reading it like this:

It is a fool's [Person who is bad at signaling intelligence/wisdom] to utter truths that no one else will risk the status hit from speaking.

That is, the fool is as good at discerning truths as the wise man, but not as good at knowing when it's advantageous to say them or not.

Comment author: RobinZ 05 April 2011 05:04:14PM 33 points [-]

Should we then call the original replicator molecules 'living'? Who cares? I might say to you 'Darwin was the greatest man who has ever lived', and you might say 'No, Newton was', but I hope we would not prolong the argument. The point is that no conclusion of substance would be affected whichever way our argument was resolved. The facts of the lives and achievements of Newton and Darwin remain totally unchanged whether we label them 'great' or not. Similarly, the story of the replicator molecules probably happened something like the way I am telling it, regardless of whether we choose to call them 'living'. Human suffering has been caused because too many of us cannot grasp that words are only tools for our use, and that the mere presence in the dictionary of a word like 'living' does not mean it necessarily has to refer to something definite in the real world. Whether we call the early replicators living or not, they were the ancestors of life; they were our founding fathers.

Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene.

(cf. Disguised Queries.)

Comment author: cousin_it 04 April 2011 12:11:00PM 33 points [-]

People commonly use the word "procrastination" to describe what they do on the Internet. It seems to me too mild to describe what's happening as merely not-doing-work. We don't call it procrastination when someone gets drunk instead of working.

-- Paul Graham

Comment author: wedrifid 04 April 2011 01:03:35PM 18 points [-]

People commonly use the word "procrastination" to describe what they do on the Internet. It seems to me too mild to describe what's happening as merely not-doing-work. We don't call it procrastination when someone gets drunk instead of working.

What exactly would Paul Graham call reading Paul Graham essays online when I should be working?

Comment author: sketerpot 04 April 2011 05:43:35PM 8 points [-]

Perhaps the answer to that question lies in one or more of the following Paul Graham essays:

Disconnecting Distraction

Good and Bad Procrastination

P.S.: Bwahahahaha!

Comment author: Costanza 04 April 2011 08:11:01PM 7 points [-]

Okay, that quote has me upvoting and closing my LessWrong browser.

Comment author: David_Gerard 05 April 2011 09:40:37AM *  3 points [-]

And this just reminded me to check the time and realise i was 40 minutes late for logging into work (cough) LessWrong as memetic hazard!

Comment author: SilasBarta 04 April 2011 03:34:46PM 4 points [-]

When it comes to learning on the internet (including, as wedrifid mentions, reading Graham's essays, but excluding e.g. porn and celebrity gossip), I'd say It's a lot less harmful and risky than being drunk, and probably helpful in a lot of ways. It's certainly not making huge strides toward accomplishing your life's goals, but it seems like a stretch to compare it to getting drunk.

Comment author: cousin_it 04 April 2011 04:03:09PM *  6 points [-]

I think PG's analogy referred to addictiveness, not harmfulness.

Comment author: childofbaud 04 April 2011 08:35:37PM 3 points [-]

Is it bad if you're addicted to good things?

Comment author: taryneast 05 April 2011 08:59:10AM *  4 points [-]

If it's getting in the way of other stuff you want/need to do, then yes. Otherwise probably no.

Comment author: cousin_it 04 April 2011 08:41:17PM 2 points [-]

No, but in this case the addiction makes you worse off because surfing the net is worse than doing productive work.

Comment author: Risto_Saarelma 05 April 2011 05:48:11AM 32 points [-]

But, there's another problem, and that is the fact that statistical and probabilistic thinking is a real damper on "intellectual" conversation. By this, I mean that there are many individuals who wish to make inferences about the world based on data which they observe, or offer up general typologies to frame a subsequent analysis. These individuals tend to be intelligent and have college degrees. Their discussion ranges over topics such as politics, culture and philosophy. But, introduction of questions about the moments about the distribution, or skepticism as to the representativeness of their sample, and so on, tends to have a chilling affect on the regular flow of discussion. While the average human being engages mostly in gossip and interpersonal conversation of some sort, the self-consciously intellectual interject a bit of data and abstraction (usually in the form of jargon or pithy quotations) into the mix. But the raison d'etre of the intellectual discussion is basically signaling and cuing; in other words, social display. No one really cares about the details and attempting to generate a rigorous model is really beside the point. Trying to push the N much beyond 2 or 3 (what you would see in a college essay format) will only elicit eye-rolling and irritation.

-- Razib Khan

Comment author: childofbaud 07 April 2011 10:52:41PM 33 points [-]

I think Donald Robert Perry said it more succinctly:

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you.”

Comment author: RichardKennaway 11 April 2011 08:20:31AM *  10 points [-]

Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you;
rebuke a wise man and he will love you.
Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still;
teach a righteous man and he will add to his learning.

Proverbs 9:7-9

Comment author: [deleted] 11 April 2011 08:35:02AM 5 points [-]

rebuke a wise man and he will love you

Provided your rebuke is sound.

Comment author: Gray 11 April 2011 04:59:15AM 1 point [-]

Ouch. There is too much truth to this. Dangerous stuff.

Comment author: ThroneMonkey 07 April 2011 08:31:31PM 2 points [-]

I registered here just to upvote this. As someone who attends a University where this sort of thing is RAMPANT, thanks you for the post.

Comment author: wedrifid 05 April 2011 05:54:23AM *  2 points [-]

But, there's another problem, and that is the fact that statistical and probabilistic thinking is a real damper on "intellectual" conversation.

It would also be fair to say that being intellectual can often be a dampener of conversation. I say this to emphasize that the problem isn't statistics or probabilistic thinking - but rather forcing rigour in general, particularly when in the form of challenging what other people say.

Comment author: Nisan 05 April 2011 05:47:00PM 2 points [-]

I usually use the word "intellectual" to refer to someone who talks about ideas, not necessarily in an intelligent way.

Comment author: orbenn 12 April 2011 12:39:48AM 1 point [-]

If being statistical and probabilistic settles oft-discussed intellectual debates so thoroughly as dampen further discussion, that's a great thing!

The goal is to get correct answers and move on to the unanswered, unsettled questions that are preventing progress; the goal is to NOT allow a debate to go any longer than necessary, especially--as Nisan mentioned--if the debate is not sane/intelligent.

Comment author: Risto_Saarelma 04 April 2011 01:03:01PM 30 points [-]

My friend, Tony, does prop work in Hollywood. Before he was big and famous, he would sell jewelry and such at Ren Faires and the like. One day I'm there, shooting the shit with him, when a guy comes up and looks at some of the crystals that Tony is selling. he finally zeroes in on one and gets all gaga over the bit of quartz. He informs Tony that he's never seen such a strong power crystal. Tony tells him it a piece of quartz. The buyer maintains it is an amazing power crystal and demands to know the price. Tony looks him over for a second, then says "If it's just a piece of quartz, it's $15. If it's a power crystal, it's $150. Which is is?" The buyer actually looked a bit sheepish as he said quietly "quartz", gave Tony his money and wandered off. I wonder if he thought he got the better of Tony.

-- genesplicer on Something Awful Forums, via

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 04 April 2011 03:58:53PM 35 points [-]

I wonder if the default price was more like $10.

Comment author: Giles 04 April 2011 06:10:57PM 19 points [-]

Wow, anchoring! That one didn't even occur to me!

Comment author: NihilCredo 05 April 2011 09:49:45PM 13 points [-]

Note to self: do not buy stuff from Nancy Lebovitz.

Comment author: Tiiba 06 April 2011 02:27:01AM *  4 points [-]

Better yet, don't go gaga. And use anchoring to your advantage - before haggling, talk about something you got for free.

Comment author: Yvain 05 April 2011 11:36:38PM *  16 points [-]

Story kind of bothers me. Yeah, you can get someone to pretend not to believe something by offering a fiscal reward, but that doesn't prove anything.

If I were a geologist and correctly identified the crystal as the rare and valuable mineral unobtainite which I had been desperately seeking samples of, but Tony stubbornly insisted it was quartz - and if Tony then told me it was $150 if it was unobtainite but $15 if it was quartz - I'd call it quartz too if it meant I could get my sample for cheaper. So what?

Comment author: Alicorn 05 April 2011 11:42:31PM 11 points [-]

I think the interesting part of the story is that it caused the power crystal dude to shut up about power crystals when he'd previously evinced interest in telling everyone about them. I don't think you could get the same effect for $135 from a lot of, say, missionaries.

Comment author: Desrtopa 04 April 2011 01:43:12PM 9 points [-]

Part of me wants to say that it was foolish of Tony to take so much less money than he could have gotten simply for getting the guy to profess that it was a piece of quartz rather than a power crystal, but I'm not sure I would feel comfortable exploiting a guy's delusions to that degree either.

Comment author: zaph 04 April 2011 02:27:26PM *  10 points [-]

I thank Tony for not taking the immediately self-benefiting path of profit and instead doing his small part to raise the sanity waterline.

Comment author: Giles 04 April 2011 03:10:37PM *  13 points [-]

Was the buyer sane enough to realise that it probably wasn't a power crystal, or just sane enough to realise that if he pretended it wasn't a power crystal he'd save $135?

Is that amount of raising-the-sanity waterline worth $135 to Tony?

I would guess it's guilt-avoidance at work here.

(EDIT: your thanks to Tony are still valid though!)

Comment author: childofbaud 04 April 2011 08:55:09PM *  7 points [-]

And with that in mind, how would it have affected the sanity waterline if Tony had donated that $135 to an institution that's pursuing the improvement of human rationality?

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 05 April 2011 04:35:44AM 40 points [-]

Look, sometimes you've just got to do things because they're awesome.

Comment author: thomblake 07 April 2011 08:27:45PM 2 points [-]

But would you feel comfortable with that maxim encoded in an AI's utility function?

Comment author: Alicorn 07 April 2011 08:38:20PM 13 points [-]

For a sufficiently rigorous definition of "awesome", why not?

Comment author: benelliott 08 April 2011 07:54:21AM 4 points [-]

If its a terminal value then CEV should converge to it.

Comment author: DanielLC 05 April 2011 12:25:47AM 5 points [-]

I think he would have been better off taking the money and donating it to a good charity.

Comment author: benelliott 04 April 2011 03:57:44PM 4 points [-]

There's no guarantee the guy would have bought it at all for $150. The impression I get is that this was ultimately a case of belief in belief, Tony knew he couldn't get much more than $15 and just wanted to win the argument.

Comment author: Desrtopa 04 April 2011 04:04:28PM 2 points [-]

I doubt he would have bought it for $150, but after making a big deal of its properties as a power crystal, he'd be limited in his leverage to haggle it down; he'd probably have taken it for three times the asking price if not ten.

Comment author: Dorikka 06 April 2011 03:29:18PM 4 points [-]

And then the guy walks away trying to prevent himself from bursting out with laughter at the fact that he just managed to get an incredibly good deal on a strong power crystal that Tony, who had clearly not been educated in such things, mistakenly believed was simple quartz.

Comment author: SRStarin 11 April 2011 01:02:59PM 3 points [-]

Meh. Tony ruined that guy's role-playing fun at a Ren Faire. People pretend to believe all kinds of silly stuff at a Ren Faire.

Last year my husband and I went to Ren Faire dressed as monks, pushing our daughter, dressed as a baby dragon, around in a stroller. (We got lots of comments about vows of celibacy.) We bought our daughter a little flower-shaped hair pin when we were there, after asking what would look best on a dragon. What Tony did would have been like the salesperson saying "That's not a dragon."

Comment author: Dreaded_Anomaly 06 April 2011 03:27:01AM *  27 points [-]

Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers.

— Grossman's Law

Comment author: Confringus 07 April 2011 02:55:11AM 2 points [-]

Is there a law that states that all simple problems have complex, hard to understand answers? Moravec's paradox sort of covers it but it seems that principle should have its own label.

Comment author: HonoreDB 04 April 2011 05:26:20PM 27 points [-]

Part of the potential of things is how they break.

Vi Hart, How To Snakes

Comment author: Manfred 04 April 2011 06:25:55PM 10 points [-]

Vi Hart is so dang awesome.

Comment author: Emile 04 April 2011 08:19:24PM 16 points [-]

"But these two snakes can't talk because this one speaks in parseltongue and that one speaks in Python"

Damn, why didn't I discover those before ...

Comment author: sixes_and_sevens 04 April 2011 07:14:22PM 4 points [-]

"Man, it seems like everyone has a triangle these days..."

Comment author: Maelin 12 April 2011 11:16:25AM 0 points [-]

Holy crap she is, how have I never seen these videos until now?

Comment author: CronoDAS 05 April 2011 06:25:31PM *  25 points [-]

A fable:

In Persia many centuries ago, the Sufi mullah or holy man Nasruddin was arrested after preaching in the great square in front of the Shah's palace. The local clerics had objected to Mullah Nasruddin's unorthodox teachings, and had demanded his arrest and execution as a heretic. Dragged by palace guards to the Shah's throne room, he was sentenced immediately to death.

As he was being taken away, however, Nasruddin cried out to the Shah: "O great Shah, if you spare me, I promise that within a year I will teach your favourite horse to sing!"

The Shah knew that Sufis often told the most outrageous fables, which sounded blasphemous to many Muslims but which were nevertheless intended as lessons to those who would learn. Thus he had been tempted to be merciful, anyway, despite the demands of his own religious advisors. Now, admiring the audacity of the old man, and being a gambler at heart, he accepted his proposal.

The next morning, Nasruddin was in the royal stable, singing hymns to the Shah's horse, a magnificent white stallion. The animal, however, was more interested in his oats and hay, and ignored him. The grooms and stablehands all shook their heads and laughed at him. "You old fool", said one. "What have you accomplished by promising to teach the Shah's horse to sing? You are bound to fail, and when you do, the Shah will not only have you killed - you'll be tortured as well, for mocking him!"

Nasruddin turned to the groom and replied: "On the contrary, I have indeed accomplished much. Remember, I have been granted another year of life, which is precious in itself. Furthermore, in that time, many things can happen. I might escape. Or I might die anyway. Or the Shah might die, and his successor will likely release all prisoners to celebrate his accession to the throne".

"Or...". Suddenly, Nasruddin smiled. "Or, perhaps, the horse will learn to sing".

The original source of this fable seems to be lost to time. This version was written by Idries Shah.

Comment author: AndrewM 04 April 2011 07:20:13PM 25 points [-]

We are built to be effective animals, not happy ones.

-Robert Wright, The Moral Animal

Comment author: Nominull 06 April 2011 03:40:18AM 24 points [-]

using the word “science” in the same way you’d use the word “alakazam” doesn’t count as being smarter

-Kris Straub, Chainsawsuit artist commentary

Comment author: nhamann 05 April 2011 09:22:48PM 24 points [-]

True heroism is minutes, hours, weeks, year upon year of the quiet, precise, judicious exercise of probity and care—with no one there to see or cheer.

— David Foster Wallace, The Pale King

Comment author: RichardKennaway 04 April 2011 10:45:00AM 24 points [-]

I recently posted these in another thread, but I think they're worth putting here to stand on their own:

"Magic is just a way of saying 'I don't know.'"

Terry Pratchett, "Nation"

The essence of magic is to do away with underlying mechanisms. ... What makes the elephant disappear is the movement of the wand and the intent of the magician, directly. If there were any intervening processes, it would not be magic but just engineering. As soon as you know how the magician made the elephant disappear, the magic disappears and -- if you started by believing in magic -- the disappointment sets in.

William T. Powers (CSGNET mailing list, April 2005)

Comment author: soreff 04 April 2011 10:10:52PM 18 points [-]

Does that mean one can answer "Do you believe in magic?" with "No, but I believe in the existence of opaque proprietary APIs"?

Comment author: RichardKennaway 04 April 2011 11:08:19PM 1 point [-]

API's made by the superintelligent creators of this universe? Personally, no.

Comment author: David_Gerard 05 April 2011 09:43:05AM 6 points [-]

Worse: APIs grown by evolution. Evolution makes the worst BASIC spaghetti coder you ever heard of look like Don Knuth by comparison.

Comment author: soreff 05 April 2011 12:41:34AM *  4 points [-]

Actually, what I had in mind was Microsoft - though their products don't pass the "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" test. Opacity and incomprehensibility (the spell checker did what?) is within their grasp...

Comment author: endoself 04 April 2011 06:44:35PM 22 points [-]

Most people would rather die than think; many do.

– Bertrand Russell

Comment author: Gray 11 April 2011 05:02:59AM 4 points [-]

Not a big fan of this. Seems like you could replace the word "think" with many different adjectives, and it would sound good or bad depending on whether I think the adjective agrees with what I consider my virtue. For instance, replace "think" with "exercise", and I would like if I'm a regular exerciser, but if I'm not I'd wonder why I would want to waste my life exercising.

Comment author: childofbaud 27 April 2011 04:56:59AM *  0 points [-]

Not a big fan of this. Seems like you could replace the word "think" with many different adjectives, and it would sound good or bad depending on whether I think the adjective agrees with what I consider my virtue. For instance, replace "think" with "exercise", and I would like if I'm a regular exerciser, but if I'm not I'd wonder why I would want to waste my life exercising.

The cognitive faculties are what makes humans distinct from other species, not any particular proclivity for exercise or any other such feats. A person refusing to think is like a fish refusing to swim.

Furthermore, we often benefit from these faculties even when pursuing interests that seem completely unrelated. Many of the best athletes are also decent thinkers. They have to be able to optimize their training regime, control their diets, cross the road, etc.

Comment author: ciphergoth 21 January 2012 03:03:51PM 0 points [-]

Wikiquote has this as:

We all have a tendency to think that the world must conform to our prejudices. The opposite view involves some effort of thought, and most people would die sooner than think — in fact they do so.

Comment author: endoself 21 January 2012 11:07:35PM 0 points [-]

Yeah, that must be the original; they even mention my version as a variant. I wonder how I found this quote originally.

Comment author: KenChen 05 April 2011 01:58:17PM *  21 points [-]

Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

– Douglas Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid

Comment author: DSimon 06 April 2011 09:22:39PM 1 point [-]

Doesn't that spiral out to infinity?

Comment author: Manfred 06 April 2011 09:40:09PM 10 points [-]

It can just asymptotically approach the right value. It's probably more metaphorical, though.

Comment author: HonoreDB 06 April 2011 09:51:43PM 13 points [-]

It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account the limit of infinite applications of Hofstadter's Law.

Comment author: ata 06 April 2011 10:02:17PM 8 points [-]

Even further:

Hofstadter's Law+: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account the limit of infinite applications of Hofstadter's Law+.

Comment author: [deleted] 07 April 2011 01:01:16AM 8 points [-]

For all ordinal numbers n, define Hodstadter's n-law as "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's m-law for all m < n."

Comment author: ata 07 April 2011 01:13:46AM *  7 points [-]

For all natural numbers n, define L_n as the nth variation of Hofstadter's Law that has been or will be posted in this thread. Theorem: As n approaches infinity, L_n converges to "Everything ever takes an infinite amount of time."

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 07 April 2011 05:56:38AM 17 points [-]

Actually it takes longer than that.

Comment author: roystgnr 13 April 2011 07:30:40PM 4 points [-]

I've got a truly marvelous proof of this theorem, but it would take forever to write it all out.

Comment author: JGWeissman 13 April 2011 07:34:35PM 1 point [-]

Hofstadter's Shiny Law: It always takes longer than you expect, especially when you get distracted discussing variants of Hofstadter's Shiny Law.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 07 April 2011 06:28:00AM *  3 points [-]

...which then forces things to take an infinite amount of time once you get to n=omega_1, so thankfully things stop there.

EDIT April 13: Oops, you can't actually "reach" omega_1 like this; I was not thinking properly. Omega_1 flat out does not embed in R. So... yeah.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 12 April 2011 01:22:59AM 0 points [-]

Yes. Hofstadter is like that.

Comment author: Kutta 04 April 2011 05:29:14PM *  18 points [-]

The correct question to ask about functions is not „What is a rule?” or „What is an association?” but „What does one have to know about a function in order to know all about it?” The answer to the last question is easy – for each number x one needs to know the number f(x) (…)

– M. Spivak: Calculus

Comment author: Matt_Duing 05 April 2011 02:13:41AM *  16 points [-]

The most important relic of early humans is the modern mind.

-Steven Pinker

Comment author: taserian 04 April 2011 07:47:05PM 16 points [-]

On perseverance:

It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired, you quit when the gorilla is tired.

-- Robert Strauss

(Although the reference I found doesn't say which Robert Strauss it was)

I think it goes well with the article Make an Extraordinary Effort.

Comment author: Desrtopa 04 April 2011 08:13:24PM *  15 points [-]

I kind of feel like a scenario is not a great starting point for talking about perseverance when it's likely to result in your immediately getting your arms ripped off.

There are times when it's important to persevere, and times when it's important to know what not to try in the first place.

Comment author: benelliott 04 April 2011 10:21:55PM 28 points [-]

And there are times when you don't get to choose whether or not you wrestle the gorilla.

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 14 April 2011 11:44:56AM *  15 points [-]

Fluff Principle: on a user-voted news site, the links that are easiest to judge will take over unless you take specific measures to prevent it.

Paul Graham "What I've learned from Hacker News"

Comment author: mispy 05 April 2011 03:08:38AM 15 points [-]

Our imagination is stretched to the utmost, not, as in fiction, to imagine things which are not really there, but just to comprehend those things which are there.

-- Richard Feynman

(I don't think he originally meant this in the context of overcoming cognitive bias, but it seems to apply well to that too.)

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 06 April 2011 12:22:37AM 7 points [-]

I think it was originally meant in the context of joy in the merely real.

Comment author: atucker 06 April 2011 07:17:13AM 14 points [-]

There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says "Morning, boys. How's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes "What the hell is water?"

~ Story, used most famously in David Foster Wallace's Commencement Address at Kenyon College

Comment author: Apprentice 04 April 2011 03:17:38PM 14 points [-]

Virtually everything in science is ultimately circular, so the main thing is just to make the circles as big as possible.

Richard D. Janda and Brian D. Joseph, 2003, The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, p. 111.

Comment author: Confringus 04 April 2011 08:39:08PM *  13 points [-]

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

Douglas Adams

This quote defines my approach to science and philosophy; a phenomenon can be wondrous on its own merit, it need not be magical or extraordinary to have value.

Comment author: Raemon 05 April 2011 03:02:51AM 2 points [-]

Is this from a particular book, or something he said randomly?

Comment author: ata 05 April 2011 05:33:01AM 3 points [-]

It's from the first Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy book.

Comment author: Raemon 05 April 2011 05:47:49AM 2 points [-]

Really? What's the context?

Comment author: HonoreDB 05 April 2011 08:08:04AM 8 points [-]

Zaphod thinks they're on a mythic quest to find the lost planet Magrathea. They've found a lost planet alright, orbiting twin stars, but Ford still doesn't believe.

As Ford gazed at the spectacle of light before them excitement burnt inside him, but only the excitement of seeing a strange new planet; it was enough for him to see it as it was. It faintly irritated him that Zaphod had to impose some ludicrous fantasy onto the scene to make it work for him. All this Magrathea nonsense seemed juvenile. Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?

Comment author: MBlume 05 April 2011 05:23:10PM 5 points [-]

Of course, in context, they are in fact orbiting the lost planet of Magrathea.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 08 April 2011 06:28:22AM 4 points [-]

Well, in true fact, there is no lost planet of Magrathea.

Comment author: Raemon 05 April 2011 11:13:08AM 1 point [-]

Thanks.

Comment author: Confringus 05 April 2011 03:24:56AM 2 points [-]

I imagine it is from one of his books but I came across it in the introduction to The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Oddly enough the Hitchhiker series is absolutely full of satirical quotes which can be applied to rationality.

Comment author: TylerJay 05 April 2011 09:40:03PM 11 points [-]

The north went on forever. Tyrion Lannister knew the maps as well as anyone, but a fortnight on the wild track that passed for the kingsroad up here had brought home the lesson that the map was one thing and the land quite another.

--George R. R. Martin A Game of Thrones

Comment author: dares 04 April 2011 07:52:14PM 11 points [-]

“In life as in poker, the occasional coup does not necessarily demonstrate skill and superlative performance is not the ability to eliminate chance, but the capacity to deliver good outcomes over and over again. That is how we know Warren Buffett is a skilled investor and Johnny Chan a skilled poker player.” — John Kay, Financial Times

Comment author: Nick_Roy 08 April 2011 09:50:15PM *  5 points [-]

“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.”

~ Aristotle

Comment author: rhollerith_dot_com 07 April 2011 04:07:50PM *  9 points [-]

To arrive at the simplest truth, as Newton knew and practiced, requires years of contemplation. Not activity. Not reasoning. Not calculating. Not busy behaviour of any kind. Not reading. Not talking. Not making an effort. Not thinking. Simply bearing in mind what it is one needs to know. And yet those with the courage to tread this path to real discovery are not only offered practically no guidance on how to do so, they are actively discouraged and have to set abut it in secret, pretending meanwhile to be diligently engaged in the frantic diversions and to conform with the deadening personal opinions which are continually being thrust upon them.

--George Spencer Brown in The Laws of Form, 1969.

Comment author: newerspeak 06 April 2011 12:25:05PM *  9 points [-]

Bertrand Russell, in his Autobiography records that his rather fearsome Puritan grandmother:

gave me a Bible with her favorite texts written on the fly-leaf. Among these was "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil." Her emphasis upon this text led me in later life to be not afraid of belonging to small minorities.

It's rather affecting to find the future hammer of the Christians being "confirmed" in this way. It also proves that sound maxims can appear in the least probable places.

-- Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

Comment author: Kutta 04 April 2011 05:30:05PM 9 points [-]

Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing.

– Mencken, quoted in Pinker: How the Mind Works

Comment author: childofbaud 05 April 2011 12:07:54AM *  8 points [-]

This one's for you, Clippy:

The specialist makes no small mistakes while moving toward the grand fallacy.

—Marshall McLuhan

Comment author: Kutta 04 April 2011 05:33:04PM *  7 points [-]

Wisdom is easy: just find someone who trusts someone who trusts someone who trusts someone who knows the truth.

– Steven Kaas

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 06 April 2011 01:51:24AM 1 point [-]

I really don't see the point. All I'm getting out of this is: "knowing the truth is hard".

Comment author: Kutta 06 April 2011 10:24:55AM 2 points [-]

Plus the notion that in the current world when you know the truth with some satisfactory accuracy, most of the time you get to know it not firsthand but via a chain of people. Therefore it might be said that evaulating people's trustworthiness is in the same league of importance as interpreting and analysing data yet untouched by people.

Also, to nitpick, if you find a chain of people full of very trustworthy people, knowing the truth could be relatively easy.

Comment author: AdeleneDawner 24 April 2011 02:57:10AM 6 points [-]

A tadpole doesn’t know
It’s gonna grow bigger.
It just swims,
and figures limbs
are for frogs.

People don’t know
the power they hold.
They just sing hymns,
and figure saving
is for god.

  • Andrea Gibson, Tadpoles (source)
Comment author: NancyLebovitz 13 April 2011 08:28:27AM 6 points [-]
Comment author: Pavitra 09 April 2011 06:33:59PM *  6 points [-]

On boldness:

If you're gonna make a mistake, make it a good, loud mistake!

-- Augiedog, Half the Day is Night

(Edit: I should mention that the linked story is MLP fanfic. The MLP fandom may be a memetic hazard; it seems to have taken over my life for the past several days, though I tend to do that with most things, so YMMV. Proceed with caution.)

Comment author: Tiiba 06 April 2011 05:26:59AM 6 points [-]

I will repost a quote that I posted many moons ago on OB, if you don't mind. I don't THINK this breaks the rules too badly, since that post didn't get its fair share of karma. Here's the first time: http://lesswrong.com/lw/uj/rationality_quotes_18/nrt

"He knew well that fate and chance never come to the aid of those who replace action with pleas and laments. He who walks conquers the road. Let his legs grow tired and weak on the way - he must crawl on his hands and knees, and then surely, he will see in the night a distant light of hot campfires, and upon approaching, will see a merchants' caravan; and this caravan will surely happen to be going the right way, and there will be a free camel, upon which the traveler will reach his destination. Meanwhile, he who sits on the road and wallows in despair - no matter how much he cries and complains - will evoke no compassion in the soulless rocks. He will die in the desert, his corpse will become meat for foul hyenas, his bones will be buried in hot sand. How many people died prematurely, and only because they didn't love life strongly enough! Hodja Nasreddin considered such a death humiliating for a human being.

"No" - said he to himself and, gritting his teeth, repeated wrathfully: "No! I won't die today! I don't want to die!""

Comment author: ewang 05 April 2011 05:57:27PM *  6 points [-]

Clevinger exclaimed to Yossarian in a voice rising and falling in protest and wonder. "It's a complete reversion to primitive superstition. They're confusing cause and effect. It makes as much sense as knocking on wood or crossing your fingers. They really believe that we wouldn't have to fly that mission tomorrow if someone would only tiptoe up to the map in the middle of the night and move the bomb line over Bologna. Can you imagine? You and I must be the only rational ones left." In the middle of the night Yossarian knocked on wood, crossed his fingers, and tiptoed out of his tent to move the bomb line up over Bologna.

Joseph Heller (Catch-22)

Comment author: wnoise 05 April 2011 09:38:36PM 1 point [-]

A bit more context for those who haven't read Catch-22 would probably help.

Comment author: ewang 06 April 2011 07:02:05AM *  2 points [-]

I don't think anything else could be added that deepens the understanding of the quote, besides the fact that moving the bomb line actually works because Corporal Kolodny (who is obviously a corporal named Kolodny) can't distinguish between cause and effect either.

Comment author: Davidmanheim 04 April 2011 05:17:56PM 5 points [-]

"Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

-Hume, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Comment author: Johnicholas 04 April 2011 05:26:09PM 5 points [-]

Doesn't that mean "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding" should be committed to the flames? I didn't notice much numerical or experimental reasoning in it.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 April 2011 07:41:38PM *  4 points [-]

The quote is somewhat experimental, but we'd have to ignore its advice to find out if it was correct.

Comment author: benelliott 04 April 2011 10:29:07PM *  1 point [-]

I would say that advice from an experienced practitioner in a given field falls into a broad definition of "experimental reasoning", since at some stage they probably tried several approaches and found out the hard way which one worked.

Comment author: Davidmanheim 19 July 2012 11:32:27PM *  0 points [-]

I think "experimental reasoning" is not what we now call scientific experimentation. It's more of what Schrodinger did with his cat; think through the issue with hypotheses and try to logically understand them. It's better than most philosophy, but not quite what we would now call science.

Comment author: wedrifid 05 April 2011 09:04:43AM 2 points [-]

Personally I enjoy illusions - some of them look pretty. I'm keeping them.

Comment author: HonoreDB 15 April 2011 02:53:03AM *  4 points [-]

(Courtesy of my dad)

One must be absolutely modern. No hymns! Hold the ground gained.

Arthur Rimbaud, 1873

Comment author: ThroneMonkey 09 April 2011 01:10:08AM 4 points [-]

"I can't make myself believe something that I don't believe" —Ricky Gervais, in discussing his atheism

Reminds me of the scene in HPMOR where Harry makes Draco a scientist.

Comment deleted 06 April 2011 07:13:37AM *  [-]
Comment author: Unnamed 06 April 2011 06:00:09PM 3 points [-]
Comment author: RichardKennaway 04 April 2011 08:16:37PM *  4 points [-]

He who pours out thanks for a favourable verdict runs the risk of seeming to betray not only a bad conscience, but also a poor idea of the judge's office.

Francis Paget, preface to the 2nd ed. of "The Spirit of Discipline", 1906
http://www.archive.org/details/thespiritofdisc00pageuoft

The book also contains material on accidie (the Introductory Essay and the preface to the seventh edition), which is probably how I came across it.

Comment author: atucker 13 April 2011 04:11:09AM *  3 points [-]

I don't have a simple answer

But I know that I could answer

-- The Killers in This is Your Life

Comment author: djcb 05 April 2011 10:30:05AM *  3 points [-]

Make no mistake about it: Computers process numbers - not symbols. We measure our understanding (and control) by the extent to which we can arithmetize an activity.

-- Alan Perlis

Since I discovered them through SICP, I always liked the 'Perlisims' -- many of his Epigrams in Programming are pretty good. There's a hint of Searle/Chinese Room in this particular quote, but he turns it around by implying that in the end, the symbols are numbers (or that's how I read it).

Comment author: Alicorn 18 April 2011 09:44:21PM 2 points [-]

You know, in the comic books where super-powered mutants are real, no one seems to question the theory of evolution. Maybe we're going about this all wrong.

-- Surviving The World

Comment author: Nornagest 18 April 2011 09:52:51PM *  4 points [-]

I initially parsed that as meaning something like "we're clearly not getting the mechanics of evolution across, since people in the comics [and by extension writers] are happy to treat it as something that can produce superheroes". But in context it actually seems to mean "let's create some superheroes to demonstrate the efficacy of evolution beyond any reasonable doubt".

Comic exaggeration, sure, and I'm probably supposed to interpret the word "evolution" very loosely if I want to take the quote at all seriously. But in view of the former, I still can't help but think that there's something fundamentally naive about the latter.

Comment author: Alicorn 18 April 2011 10:07:57PM 2 points [-]

I didn't quote the commentary under the comic for a reason.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 18 April 2011 09:55:17PM 0 points [-]

You know, in the comic books where super-powered mutants are real, no one seems to question the theory of evolution. Maybe we're going about this all wrong.

Hasn't it been pointed out here before that super-powered mutants are exactly not what we would expect from evolution?

Comment author: Alicorn 18 April 2011 10:07:30PM 1 point [-]

Hasn't it been pointed out here before that super-powered mutants are exactly not what we would expect from evolution?

Yes, but the quote is new.

Comment author: wobster109 10 April 2011 07:09:13AM 2 points [-]

"If you choose to follow a religion where, for example, devout Catholics who are trying to be good people are all going to Hell but child molestors go to Heaven (as long as they were "saved" at some point), that's your choice, but it's fucked up. Maybe a God who operates by those rules does exist. If so, fuck Him." --- Bill Zellar's suicide note, in regards to his parents' religion

I love this passage. If a god as described in the Bible did exist, following him would be akin to following Voldemort: fidelity simply because he was powerful. This isn't precisely a rationality quote, but it does have a bit of the morality-independent-of-religion thing. (The rest of the note is beautiful and eloquent as well.)

Comment author: MinibearRex 11 April 2011 04:37:20AM 11 points [-]

I think we should keep some sort op separation between "rationality quotes" and "atheism quotes". You can stretch this to be a rationality quote, but it does require a stretch. Just because a quote argues against the existence of a god doesn't make it particularly rational.

Comment author: ata 10 April 2011 08:04:57AM 10 points [-]

I love this passage. If a god as described in the Bible did exist, following him would be akin to following Voldemort: fidelity simply because he was powerful.

There are other similarities too. e.g. Voldemort's human form died and rose again; his (first) death was foretold in prophesy, involved a betrayal (albeit in the opposite direction), and left his followers anxiously awaiting his return; "And these signs shall follow them that believe; ... they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents..." (Mark 16:17-18); ...

So, who wants to join the First Church of Voldemort?

Comment author: dares 06 April 2011 12:19:53AM 2 points [-]

Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

—Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Comment author: childofbaud 07 April 2011 03:46:10AM 6 points [-]

A domain-specific interpretation of the same concept:

"The real hero of programming is the one who writes negative code."

—Douglas McIlroy

Comment author: childofbaud 07 April 2011 11:10:13PM 5 points [-]

A domain-neutral interpretation of the same concept:

Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

—William of Ockham

Comment author: bcoburn 06 April 2011 05:03:58AM 2 points [-]

This one really needs to have been applied to itself, "short is good" is way better.

(also this was one of EY's quotes in the original rationality quotes set, http://lesswrong.com/lw/mx/rationality_quotes_3/ )

Comment author: [deleted] 07 April 2011 01:06:47AM 3 points [-]

Perfection is lack of excess.

Comment author: dares 06 April 2011 12:37:19PM 3 points [-]

Also, "short is good" would narrow this quotes focus considerably.

Comment author: CronoDAS 06 April 2011 06:24:09AM 1 point [-]

Maybe it's shorter in French?

Comment author: komponisto 06 April 2011 06:35:47AM 5 points [-]

Compare:

Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte non quand il n'y a plus rien à ajouter, mais quand il n'y a plus rien à retrancher.

So, no.

Comment author: mtraven 04 April 2011 10:26:26PM *  1 point [-]

The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education.

-- Paul Feyerabend

Comment author: David_Gerard 05 April 2011 09:28:12AM *  2 points [-]

This one could do with expansion and/or contextualisation. A quick Google only turns up several pages of just the bare quote (including on a National Institue of Health .gov page!) - what was the original source? Anyone?

Comment author: mtraven 06 April 2011 02:44:57AM 2 points [-]

Well, I deliberately left out the source because I didn't think it would play well in this Peoria of thought -- it's from his book of essays Farewell to Reason. Link to gbooks with some context.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 12 April 2011 01:49:43AM *  2 points [-]

Well, I deliberately left out the source because I didn't think it would play well in this Peoria of thought -- it's from his book of essays Farewell to Reason. Link to gbooks with some context.

We've had rationality quotes before from C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterson, and Jack Chick among others. I don't think people are going to complain because of generic context issues even if Feyerabend did say some pretty silly stuff.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 12 April 2011 01:30:08AM 0 points [-]

Can you please explain what you mean by calling LW a "Peoria of thought" and why you believe it is one? It doesn't sound good, and if you've found a problem I'd like to know about it and address it.

Comment author: [deleted] 12 April 2011 01:34:32AM 1 point [-]

Pretty much any forum tends to evolve into a bit of an echo chamber. I don't think there is any general solution to it other than for whole forums to be bubbling into and out of existence.

Comment author: Carwajalca 18 May 2011 07:43:27PM 0 points [-]

Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off.

By Richard Dawkins, quoting a former editor of New Scientist (here's at least one source). I don't think this quote contains any deep wisdom as such, but it made me laugh. Actually you could replace the word science with any other noun and it would still make grammatical sense.

Comment author: komponisto 18 May 2011 08:03:52PM *  1 point [-]

Actually you could replace the word science with any other noun and it would still make grammatical sense.

That is a consequence of the meaning of the term "grammatical sense", not a property of the particular sentence under discussion.

Comment author: Carwajalca 18 May 2011 08:16:10PM 2 points [-]

Good point. What I meant is that this quote could be used to defend anything. "Being irrational is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off."