SisterY comments on Rationality Quotes November 2011 - Less Wrong

6 Post author: Jayson_Virissimo 01 November 2011 06:28PM

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

Comments (391)

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

Comment author: thomblake 01 November 2011 10:33:30PM 8 points [-]

A propos:

Thales of Miletus was a philosopher - so committed was he to thinking carefully that once he was walking along contemplating deeply and thus fell into a well. The locals made fun of him, commenting that philosophers were so busy attending to the stars that they could not see what is in front of them.

Since coins were recently invented (or recently brought to Asia Minor), Thales was involved in a discussion over the power of money. His interlocutors didn't believe that a philosopher could become rich, but he insisted that the power of the mind was paramount. To prove the power of having a reasoning mind, he devised a way of predicting weather patterns. He used this knowledge to buy up everyone's olive presses when the weather was bad and managed to corner the market, becoming quite wealthy when a very good season followed soon after.

Comment author: SisterY 03 November 2011 11:21:50PM *  6 points [-]

In "Self-poisoning of the mind" Jon Elster uses the Thales olive incident as an example of a perverse cognitive bias:

In his retelling of the [Thales olive] story, de Montaigne (1991, p. 153) explicitly asserts that when he condemned money-making, Thales ‘was accused of sour grapes like the fox’. Although Thales wanted to ‘show the world’ that the accusation was unfounded, one could also imagine that he had made a fortune in order to demonstrate to himself that his philosophy was not the product of sour grapes. Not content with thinking that he could have acquired riches had he wanted to, he might have decided to actually acquire them to deflect self-suspicion. [Emphasis in original.]

What Elster is pushing is that, since we are aware we edit reality to suit our self-images, we constantly suspect ourselves of doing so, and perversely believe the worst of ourselves on very flimsy evidence.

Comment author: thomblake 03 November 2011 11:26:18PM 0 points [-]

Also, Welcome to Less Wrong, apparently. Your handle looks familiar for some reason, so I didn't notice you were new.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 04 November 2011 11:39:08AM 1 point [-]
Comment author: thomblake 04 November 2011 01:34:39PM 0 points [-]

Right, that SisterY. You're probably right.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 04 November 2011 02:06:13PM 1 point [-]

Not a fan of rhetorical questions? How about meta-jokes?

Comment author: SisterY 04 November 2011 07:47:41PM 2 points [-]

Making a point to show that a point is not a point is not as good as making a nonpoint to show that a point is not a point.

-Chuang-tzu

Comment author: Kutta 04 November 2011 08:27:44PM 0 points [-]

That's witholding potentially important information. Also, you still have to address other people's erroneous beliefs about their points.

Comment author: thomblake 04 November 2011 03:07:45PM 0 points [-]

No and yes.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 November 2011 11:33:08AM 0 points [-]

I recall a user by that name on Overcoming Bias.

Comment author: thomblake 03 November 2011 11:25:01PM 0 points [-]

This being markdown, begin the first line of that blockquote paragraph with a greater-than sign and replace the italics tags with asterisks.