= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lessdazed comments on A Rationalist's Tale - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (305)
Being levels above in rationalism means doing rationalist practice 101 much better than others as much as being a few levels above in fighting means executing a basic front-kick much better than others.
To follow the analogy further if you are a few levels above in fighting then you should not find yourself face-planting every time you attempt a front kick. Or, at least, if you know that front kicks are the one weakness in your otherwise superb fighting technique then you don't use front kicks.
Before I vote on this post, please clarify whether you think being a few levels above in fighting means executing a basic front-kick much better than others.
Ceteris paribus, being better at front-kicking makes one a better fighter. One would probably need mastery of more than the one technique to be considered levels up: rationalism 102, 103, etc. I just used one example of a basic fighting technique because the sentence flowed better that way; I didn't put much time in thinking about and formulating it.
But the point was that no advanced techniques are needed to be many levels above normal. I see now that the comment might imply it's enough to be several levels up with one skill alone. At 45 seconds into this video is a fight between a master of grappling and a regular MMA fighter. If they had made it to the ground together and conscious, Gracie would have won easily. He needed a more credible striking threat so Gomi would have had to defend against that too, and thereby weaken his defense against being taken down.
I meant something like:
I have probably heard that quote before, but wasn't consciously thinking of it.
How do fights end? Not with spinning jumping back-kicks to the head, but with basic moves better executed than basic counters to them. Right cross, arm-bar, someone running away, simple simple.
By analogy, for rationalism I'm emphasizing the connection between basic and advanced rationality mentioned by Kaj_Solata. If you don't have the basics, you have nothing, and you can't make up for it with moderate facility at doing advanced things.
Gotcha. Upvoted.
If you do it right, the same way they start: A single king hit.
I regret that I only have one upvote to give this comment.
You could instead make a post more explicitly about how rationality is a set of skills that must be trained. I keep trying to get this into people's heads but you are in a much better position to do so than I am, and it's an important thing to be aware of. Like, really important.
(I always end up making analogies to chess or guitar, perhaps you could make analogies to computer programming?)
That's why we've given you a karmic wake, brother.
The technical term is bro.
Bro as in Kamina.
We should perhaps formalize norms for upvoting based on this kind of comment. In any case, I'm doing so. And then going back to read the context to make sure I agree.
I find that the increased attention given to the context combined with the positive priming is more than enough.
In this case, however I am finding that the comment backfired. It is Kaj's comment, not lessdazed's. Lessdazed's comment isn't bad as an independent observation but does miss the point of its parent. This means Eliezer's "upvote MOAR" comment is a red herring and I had to downvote it and lessdazed in responsed where I would otherwise have left it alone.
I have an idea...(begins writing discussion post draft)