= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
GabrielDuquette comments on Rationality Quotes October 2011 - 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 (532)
Scott Aaronson
I've read the source and context of that and it's really not impressing me as a rational thing to do... it's a clever/smartass thing to do, but in what way did Ilyssa win? Surely she didn't expect Eric to enlighten her on the subject in some way she hadn't thought about before, and now she is "miserable about Eric", and didn't get to enjoy Hamlet.
The "I can't stop myself" says it all - she can't choose not to defect. That's not a strength.
Another quote from that source amuses me:
Reminds me of Secular Heaven
Agreed. All the things to say that she finds "interesting" and "valid" seem to be shocking to other people. That's not a problem of being too honest, it's a problem of intentionally trying to drive people away (or being someone's bulbous caricature of a "rationalist").
And, of course, rational agents maximize their current utility functions.
J. K. Rowling
Edit: Wasn't expecting downvotes. Maybe the distinction between the attributions is obvious, but I still don't see it.
Edit 2: Downvotes explained; thanks.
It is perhaps not obvious that you are ironically committing a sin in order to point out someone else's unironic sin, rather than just unironically sinning yourself.
I am also not a downvoter (I generally try not to) but I think it's likely due to the hostile, aggressive tone, and the lack of implied values, as NancyLebovitz touched on.
I also might suggest that Rowling probably didn't mean that, since it was said by, ya know, Voldemort. Some may have downvoted because it implied Rowling agreed with it.
I'm not one of the downvoters, but I'd say the quote isn't rationalist because it leaves out what one might be seeking power for. And it makes a wild guess about why everyone isn't in line with the speaker's favorite value.
I'd also say that it's important to think about where cooperation fits into trying to get anything done.
The point is that J. K. Rowling didn't say it.
There's more than one point. One is that it assuredly isn't Rowling's point of view, and another is that regardless of who said it, it isn't a rationalist statement.
I recommend that we have a convention of not just attributing quotes to their authors, but at least mentioning if a quote is the words of a fictional character. Ideally, there would be a link or some mention of context.
Yes, I'm very confused. I knew it was Voldemort who said that, but could you perhaps explain your point? I'm unfamiliar with the original quote; were you trying to point out that Scott Aaronson didn't mean what was attributed to him anymore than Rowling meant what you attributed to her?
Also, when I first read the quote my brain inferred that Scott Aaronson had provoked some kind of blog drama kerfuffle and been forced into a backpedaling, self-justifying apology; which lowered its opinion of him.
Even if he meant it (and it's unclear what that would mean in context), the minimum standard for attributing a quotation to someone should be that they said it themselves.
I disagree, I attribute a number of qutoes in my quotesfile to Eliezer, even though they were actually "said" by Harry, in HPMOR. I feel like it's a far more honest attribution, provided you are able to ascertain which characters are actually the voice of the author, which for the vast majority of literature, is quite obvious.
This sounds like illusion of transparency to me. I've never written a character whose arbitrary lines I'd like quoted as though I'd said them sans fictional mouthpiece.
See my other comment.
That's an interesting example when EY has complained himself about people attributing views to him based on the story, and even put disclaimers on chapters 1 and 22 to try to stop it.
I don't see how it's more honest. Are people going to infer that Scott doesn't hold any position that isn't attributed to him?
I've noticed the disclaimers, but I feel fairly confident (p > 0.95) that none of the quotes (They're all said by Harry) he would mind being attributed to him. If the consensus is that I shouldn't attribute these quotes to him, or if he himself actually says so, I will certainly change them:
• “When you put on the robes of a scientist you must forget all your politics and arguments and factions and sides, silence the desperate clingings of your mind, and wish only to hear the answer of Nature.” – Eliezer Yudkowsky, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
• “There is no justice in the laws of nature, … no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky. But they don't have to. We care. There is light in the world, and it is us.” - Eliezer Yudkowsky, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
• “So I won't ask you to say that [it] was wrong … just say that it was… sad. We won't talk about whether or not it was necessary, whether it was justified. I'll just ask you to say that it was sad that it happened. … If we start out by saying that every life is precious, that it's sad when anyone dies, then I know we'll meet someday.” – Eliezer Yudkowsky, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
• “I see little hope for democracy as an effective form of government, but I admire the poetry of how it makes its victims complicit in their own destruction.” – Eliezer Yudkowsky, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
• “Tell me something. What does a government have to do, what do the voters have to do with their democracy, what do the people of a country have to do, before I ought to decide that I'm not on their side any more?” – Eliezer Yudkowsky, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
And I see it as more honest because the "character" doesn't exist. He isn't saying it, because he doesn't actually exist. If the author is speaking through the character (and you shouldn't quote the character, otherwise) then he or she is ultimately the speaker.
Ironically, I do have some quotes in my file attributed to characters, usually because they are from movies or TV shows with multiple writers, that you can't have a reasonable attribution to a single writer to.
Why not use "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, by Eliezer Yudkowsky", rather than "Eliezer Yudkowsky, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality"? My intuition is that putting the title of the work of fiction first makes it more clear that you're citing the author's words rather than necessarily the author's own opinions.
The first two quotes seem like things that Eliezer would actually agree with. But I'm substantially less convinced about the others.
Nope.
Maybe her best chance for happiness would have been with a fellow rationalist, and there's only one way to find him.
Maybe, but there's nothing to support the idea that that's what's motivating Ilyssa there. It seems more like an excuse to blurt out anything contrarian that comes to mind, without having to exercise any impulse control or consider the actual, you know, effect of the words.
Maybe I'm committing the typical mind fallacy, but I think I see what's going on here because there's a part of me that likes that quote - the part of me that is clever and contrarian and enjoys throwing wrenches into arbitrary social scripts and customs, because the arbitrariness combined with the expectation of being conformed to offends me. I think many of us here can identify with that and perhaps that's what's causing people to mistake that quote as a rationalist one?
If not, then answer me this: was either instrumental or epistemic rationality served there in any way?
If you read the quote in context, then it's coming from a person who may have inherited paranoid schizophrenia from her father. The quote may be an attempt to add credence to thoughts and impulses that, for a while at least, align with rationality-as-we-know-it.
Taken out of context, it's a good mantra that you can apply as politely or impolitely as you like. You can even reword it so that it no longer requires attribution, thus removing the context you don't like.
Out of context, I still get a little red flag when I see the "I can't stop myself" part.
Though perhaps that might be because I didn't quite manage to divorce it from context in my mind...
EDIT: Anyway, I think context matters, the spirit in which a quote was originally made should be taken into consideration. So I downvoted the quote because I don't want people to look up the source and then perceive that kind of smartassery as "rationality" as approved by lesswrongians.
Yeah, I see your point. You won't accept a version with "I can't stop myself" removed?
I suppose... But if we change it and read it as being about something else (than what it was about in the original context) then it isn't really a rationality quote any more, is it?
Can it suffice that I understood where you're coming from and respect what you were trying to say? (even before getting here, I upvoted your previous comment, for clarity and responding well without being defensive.) I just object to that quote, not to the sentiment you're trying to express.
Thanks for the even-handed and accurate criticism. Rationality is awesome!
Fair enough.
Instrumental rationality is served if she likes blindsiding people more than anything else she could get from them, but she doesn't actually seem to, once she thinks about it.