gwern comments on Cryonics is Far, Cord-blood is Near - Less Wrong

3 Post author: gwern 08 December 2011 08:50PM

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

Comments (11)

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

Comment author: gwern 08 December 2011 09:46:11PM 1 point [-]

Look at the wiki summary:

All of these bring each other more to mind: here, now, me, us; trend-deviating likely real local events; concrete, context-dependent, unstructured, detailed, goal-irrelevant incidental features; feasible safe acts; secondary local concerns; socially close folks with unstable traits.

'socially close folks with unstable traits' - hm, I'm sure that has no connection with cryonics and the 'hostile wife phenomenon'.

Comment author: Unnamed 08 December 2011 10:39:01PM 2 points [-]

What the stable vs. unstable distinction refers to is that in far mode a person's behavior is more likely to be seen as resulting from the person's general, stable dispositions (their traits) while in near mode the person is seen as responding more flexibly and variably to the particulars of the situation. "Unstable traits" is a misleading phrase, because near-mode thinking involves seeing others as less trait-like.

For instance, Trope & Liberman (2003) write that "According to CLT, global traits constitute high-level construals of behavior, whereas situation-specific states constitute lower level construals of behavior" and describe a study which, "[c]onsistent with CLT, ... suggests that people are more likely to use abstract, decontextualized trait concepts in predicting distant-future than near-future behavior."

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403-421.

Comment author: gwern 08 December 2011 10:42:13PM 0 points [-]

I see. I was initially titling this post the opposite, 'Cryonics is Far, Cordblood is Near', but then after looking through the list and thinking about hostile-wives, decided to swap it. Well, regardless of which label fits on which practice, the contrast is still striking. (I'll swap it back, unless you think that'd be even more wrong?)

Comment author: Khoth 08 December 2011 11:52:45PM 16 points [-]

Your willingness to swap the labels around like that suggests that you're trying to force in a near-far distinction that isn't actually there.

Comment author: gwern 09 December 2011 12:05:09AM 2 points [-]

Or the willingness suggests I am able to admit that I made a mistake.

Comment author: Unnamed 08 December 2011 10:55:36PM 2 points [-]

It's not clear to me that the two practices differ on the near/far dimension. The passage suggests that cord blood is more popular than cryonics, so maybe that should be the headline (unless you have more to say about why you think they differ in popularity).