ChrisHallquist comments on Defense Against The Dark Arts: Case Study #1 - Less Wrong

100 Post author: Yvain 28 March 2009 02:31AM

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

Comments (48)

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

Comment author: HungryTurtle 21 April 2012 01:48:36AM 1 point [-]

Isn't saying that Yvain's final statement is

exactly backwards

also failing to make a distinction between a vaguely hostile comment and an extreme claim? To say it is exactly backwards is to imply that there is nothing wrong with steve jobs statement. I agree with you that some of Yvain's fallacies are distorted--most notably the assumption that those who liked the comment were venting out a subconscious lash at "hippies"--but that does not change the fact that Steve job’s statement contains huge logical issues.

First, Yvain is right that it is a fallacy of equivocation.

Second, any statement that attempts to make a generalization about "the East" is a HUGE over-generalization and quite frankly Orientalism. I mean how does Steve jobs justify making an assertion about Russia, China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam and the score of other countries that is associated with the term “the east” from one trip to India in his youth? On what grounds do we take Steve jobs one trip to who knows where in India for how long as representative of the functional value of the civilization as a whole.

Steve jobs is using an availability heuristic which is NOT rational.

There is sufficient evidence that the steve jobs quote and the second quote are not “exactly backwards” as you put it, so why did you put it that way? In my opinion, it suggests that Yvain hit it on the mark. Steven Jobs or something else contained in that quote carries personal connotations that you felt a need to defend.

Comment author: ChrisHallquist 22 April 2012 06:13:50PM 0 points [-]

So to clarify, what's "exactly backwards" is saying that to a good rationalist, "the statements '' and '' sound exactly alike." Whereas I think an important part of being a good rationalist is being able to distinguish between the two. I'm not saying Yvain's entire post is backwards.

Comment author: HungryTurtle 23 April 2012 12:23:21PM 0 points [-]

Fair enough, could you tell me what exactly it means to be a good rationalist?