NancyLebovitz comments on Being Wrong about Your Own Subjective Experience - Less Wrong

37 Post author: lukeprog 24 April 2011 08:24PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (187)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: SilasBarta 25 April 2011 10:16:10PM *  1 point [-]

I have in fact noticed that comments of mine that discuss music score consistently lower than my other comments.

Did you notice that your comments (and those agreeing with you) nonetheless score higher than your critics in such discussions? (And whoever's modding you down in this thread, it's not me -- I don't use downmods against opponents when my investment in the discussion might be compromising my judgment.)

(1) It matters when determining whether a clique is learning the structure of reality or just replaying inside jokes. If the clique judges designs based on useful models that carve reality at its joints, and that use objective, unfakeable (e.g. through consensus) metrics, we should care what they think and we should be impressed those who can hit narrow targets in the design space they define. If the clique has to keep checking on whether the rest of the clique already likes something, because there really isn't a successful model ... then none of that applies. Which category do MACs fall in?

(2) Well, then where does the rest of Mozart's value come from?

From the other stuff that people still like, voluntarily listen to, etc. after hundreds of years and no indoctrination.

As bad as Lady Gaga might be, where's the Music Theory PhD can that can demonstrate a superior understanding of the mind-music relationship, rather than just whine about how reality won't bend to fit his theories?

In the present context, this is a distinction without a difference. The point is that I could simply say to you "the market has spoken" with regard to Bell, just as you are wont to do with EKM. What criterion of "justification" are you appealing to here?

The ability to make a judgment without having to first be told what your judgment should be. Layfolk who get recordings of EKM aren't doing it because it's the hot thing right now among their friends and the elite cultural arbiters told them to.

In contrast, the royalty really wouldn't tell the difference if Bell flubbed and "only" performed at the 95% percentile. While the market has spoken, it is not announcing a victory of the characteristics you claim are important: it is showing that people will buy based on hype, and we know it's hype because their market value changes when the hype is removed (as the Bell experiment showed -- no wealthy person said, "Holy s***! Let me hire you to be my personal performer! You're way undervalued here!")

It should really raise a red flag for your when you're basing your opinion on "but rich people like this stuff when they're duped!"

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 26 April 2011 02:10:34AM 1 point [-]

From the other stuff that people still like, voluntarily listen to, etc. after hundreds of years and no indoctrination.

There's very little that I'm familiar with which meets that standard-- possibly some Christmas carols. What do you mean by indoctrination?

Comment author: SilasBarta 26 April 2011 02:33:35AM -1 points [-]

There's very little that I'm familiar with which meets that standard-- possibly some Christmas carols.

Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, Ode to Joy, Water Music, The Four Seasons, Flight of the Bumblebee, Flight of the Valkyries, ...

What do you mean by indoctrination?

Being taught throughout schooling that "This is good music, high status people produced and listen to this music", plus, in the case of higher learning, the inferential distance chain you're taken through that results in you liking obscure academic classical-style music.

Alternatively, being taught throughout schooling that, "Being [religion X] is good, high status people belong to this religion, you will be high status if you're faithful", plus only getting good grades/promotion if you can master the doctrines of a religion.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 26 April 2011 09:23:44AM 2 points [-]

Popular classical music isn't as high status as difficult modern and contemporary classical music, but it's still pretty high status.

"No indoctrination" is a high standard. Also, is there a difference so far as indoctrination is concerned between "high status people like this" and "normal people like this"?

Comment author: SilasBarta 26 April 2011 06:39:35PM *  0 points [-]

Also, is there a difference so far as indoctrination is concerned between "high status people like this" and "normal people like this"?

Not in terms of the uninformativeness it injects into the fact of their popularity. That is, if something's popular without that kind of in-school promotion (like Halo), that says a lot more about it then whether people "like" something (but continue to doze through any actual performance until the part where they get to sleep with their date) that is promoted in school, such as Shakespeare.