Rationality Quotes February 2012
Here's the new thread for posting quotes, with the usual rules:
- Please post all quotes separately, so that they can be voted up/down separately. (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments. If strongly ordered, then go ahead and post them together.)
- Do not quote yourself.
- Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB.
- No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.
Loading…
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (401)
Radiohead
This song has been instrumentally useful to me in more ways than one...
E. W. Dijkstra
That's certainly a mistake that many people make, but we shouldn't consciously correct for it unless it's a bias with predictable direction. Does excessive belief in common-sense analogies really cause more problems than excessive belief in new shiny ideas? How do you tell?
I don't think the quote is about favoring common sense over new shiny ideas. I think it's about how we tend to be lazy with words as long as we can get away with it -- until the words are completely wrong.
Dijkstra doesn't propose that novelty is avoidable. He admonishes us for describing it poorly.
Space-time is like this set of equations, for which any analogy must be an approximation.
--Heretics, G. K. Chesterton
I was interested in the context here. Chesterton was referencing Wells' original belief that the classes would differentiate until the upper class ate the lower class. Wells changed his mind to believe the classes would merge.
The entire book is free on Google Books.
At the point where those are the two hypothesises being considered there may be larger problems.
In the Time Machine, it's the other way round.
--William James, The Will to Believe II
I like this William James quote and some others, but I guess LW doesn't, considering this comment's score. I could speculate on it as much as I want, but I don't know why.
Edited for wedifrid's uncharitable objection.
It is conceivable that people vote based on quotes and not just the author the quote is attributed to!
On the Outside View:
--Steven Kaas
What lessons? The WP link was interesting, but I didn't catch anything other than "defunct empire".
To explain: the Outside View is a powerful tool, but one sometime should reject it based on even more powerful factors from the Inside View, where one can be sure that one is in a new (or at least, different) reference class from the one being used in the Outside View. Of course, one may want to reject it based just on one like one's views...
This sometimes leads to a back-and-forth series of arguments over burdens of proof dubbed 'reference class tennis' where the two sides argue over what is the correct reference class which will either support or undermine a particular claim (is AGI in the reference class of "additional incremental innovation", which would undermine claims of significant danger/reward, or entire "regime changes", which would support the same claims? This is the game of reference class tennis which Eliezer and Hanson are arguing their way through in the link and related links).
Kaas is humorously parodying a side using an Outside View involving the Neo-Sumerian Empire, replying to the other side making the commonsense position - yours too ('what lessons?') - that the quasi-literate agricultural Neo-Sumerian Empire from 3000 years ago is not in any reference class that matters to us, and implying that the speaker is writing the other side off as rationalizing and excuse-seeking. The parody works because we agree that in this case, the Outside View is not applicable or its weak evidence is overwhelmed by Inside View evidence about how different the Neo-Sumerian Empire is from any contemporary societies or organizations or processes, and this reminds us that often Outside View arguments simply may not work (eg. arguments from evolutionary psychology, which draw from time periods and societies even more distant from and less like our own than the Neo-Sumerian Empire).
And now that I've explained it entirely, I can no longer find it funny. I hope you're happy.
Thanks. The statement you quoted was meant as a continuation of this, in case that makes it less confusing. I should probably have made that explicit.
At least that explanation was fun to read :) Thanks.
Alain de Botton
--Alain de Botton
Is this true? Naive Googling yields this, which suggests (non-authoritatively) that blood sugar and moods are indeed linked (in diabetics, but it's presumably true in the general population). However, despair is not noted and the effects generally seem milder than that (true despair is a rather powerful emotion!)
Anecdotally: I'm not diabetic that I know of, but my mood is highly dependent on how well and how recently I've eaten. I get very irritable and can break down into tears easily if I'm more than four hours past due.
Blood sugar is very closely linked to self-control, including suppression of emotion. While this may appear to be a different thing, it isn't: when you include feedback loops and association spirals, a transient, weak emotional distraction can become deep and overwhelming if normal modes of suppression fail.
See here, here and here.
Low moods and despair are both made of atoms. The quality of atomness doesn't vanish as bad feelings get worse. The quote is suggesting that keeping this fact in mind may be therapeutically valuable -- you're probably less likely to despair if you understand that your despair has a knowable, physical, potentially correctable basis.
Douglas Murray describing advice from a Holocaust survivor.
Perhaps this should be checked by comparing the number of people who say they want to annihilate a group to the number of attempts at annihilation.
True, but you should first assign appropriate weights to the two categories you mention based on the expected cost of having an incorrect belief.
This seems obviously correct, but at the same time it seems at odds with the virtue of evenness.
At a minimum, you could include estimates of the ability to carry out the threat in your calculations.
Just for fun: similar advice based on British folk ballads.
I may say that this is the greatest factor—the way in which the expedition is equipped—the way in which every difficulty is foreseen, and precautions taken for meeting or avoiding it. Victory awaits him who has everything in order — luck, people call it. Defeat is certain for him who has neglected to take the necessary precautions in time; this is called bad luck.
Yeah, but that's not very useful to tell when you're taking sensible precautions and when you're just packing cans of shark repellent.
Neal Stephenson, Quicksilver.
I was pondering whether to cut the quote at this point, or to include the rest of the dialogue between natural philosopher Daniel Waterhouse and alchemist Enoch Root. I decided to cut the quote here firstly because otherwise it would be too long, and secondly because the rest of the dialogue does not have the same stirring, "yay science!", "yay modernity!" feeling of Daniel's tirade. But it is thought-provoking, so I include it below, with some reflections after it:
How do you interpret this? The best interpretation I can make for what Root is saying is that when you describe Nature in abstract, mathematical/geometrical ways, you will end up confusing your abstraction for reality -- and then anything which does not fit with your abstraction (like the pole does not fit in the Cartesian grid) will seem inherently mysterious, even though its mystery is an illusion of your abstract description and it is not more inherently mysterious than the pole is inherently different from other points on Earth.
This resonates with the view some philosophers have on the hard problem of consciousness and how to dissolve it: the idea goes that modern science describes nature in quantitative terms and pushes everything qualitative to the subjective realm (e.g., light is "in reality" electromagnetic waves defined as such and such equations, and color is the subjective perception of it and exists only "in the mind") and then qualia seem inherently mysterious and not-fitting with the rest of nature, but this is only because we have confused our abstractions for reality. The more recent Putnam has said things along these lines, as well as several "neo-Aristotelian" philosophers. But I wouldn't have associated Stephenson with such views, and yet Root seems to be speaking for him here, so I am a bit confused.
Hunh? It's just an allusion to non-Euclidean geometry and the Gauss-Bonnet theorem, which prevents any Cartesian grid system from working on the sphere.
Yes, that is the surface meaning, but it seems to me there must be a secondary one. Daniel's tirade in the previous comment is not just saying "we will be able to draw accurate maps using a Cartesian grid" (otherwise, why say "that will be the end of Alchemy"? what does that literal meaning have to do with alchemy?). Notice that he is responding there to Root's assertion that there is little contrast between alchemy and "the younger and more vigorous order of knowledge that is associated with your club", i.e. modern science (the club is the Royal Society). So I take him to mean that the new scientific method, which relies on precise, mathematical thinking as opposed to the qualitative, semi-mystical thinking in alchemy (this is what "Cartesian grid vs dragons" stands for), will carry the day and eliminate alchemy. So I think that Root's reply that "you will leave out the poles" must have a hidden interpretation that fits in this broader argument, besides the surface one you point out.
That there must be a second meaning is also supported by Daniel saying with a sigh "Very well, perhaps we'll get back to Alchemy in the end" -- you wouldn't need alchemy to draw a map with a different projection that includes the pole!
Well, it's been pointed out on occasion that modern physics did get back to alchemy - in the sense of transmuting elements (radioactivity). Personally, I took Root as referring to what the alchemists did achieve: apparent immortality, given his presence in Cryptonomicon. The younger order achieved a great deal, but just as map projections always have difficulties caused by mapping 3D to 2D, the younger order has difficulties with a few singular parts of the territory, if you will.
Ah, nothing like a good old-fashioned book-burning.
Theodore Dalrymple
What a cliffhanger.
Mark Wilson, Wandering Significance
Curious to know why this was downvoted. Many philosophers use 'scientism' as a term of abuse, and Luke has written about reclaiming the term here. I found this a rather pithy rallying call that antedates Rosenberg's.
Apologies if this is gratuitous but it was my first post!
The quote doesn't seem to actually say anything.
I suppose it's one of those statements that says a good deal in context and rather less outside it. 'Scientism' usually refers to a belief in the universal applicability of the tools of science in understanding the world. It is so understood by two camps, one who views it as an intellectual failing, the other a virtue. Wilson's point is that the latter camp should not cede any ground to the former -- not even terminological ground.
Edit: by context here I don't mean the book in particular. More like, reading too much contemporary philosophy.
Unfortunately, the word "scietism" does describe a real set of related failure modes that people trying to be "scientific" frequently fall into, as I discussed in more detail in this thread.
Unscientific does that job already, while the '-ism' suffix denotes, in this case, belief in science. Why let them have a perfectly good word?
No. It also cover people who don't even try to be scientific.
Agree with that. There is a finer-grained distinction worth drawing -- with some other word!
I think "scientism," "unscientific," and "pseudoscientific" all have different and necessary meanings: respectively, "attempting to use scientific epistemology but misunderstanding it", "using bad epistemology," and "using bad epistemology but making a deliberate effort to look like one is being scientific". The word closest to meaning what you want "scientism" to mean is probably "Bayesianism".
--W. V. O. Quine
--Madonna
David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity
Charles S. Peirce
Geoffrey Warnock
Humanity becomes more and more of an accessory every day; with increasing power comes increasing responsibility.
I tried reading that story, but got stuck on the brat. Please tell me she gets better?
Not really, but there's more focus on other characters as the comic goes on, and events get to show more sides to her (still basically bratty) personality.
~ Pat Wagner
~ Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib, Irulan, Herbert elder
I've never been able to make sense out of that. It sounds very tough and definite, but what does it mean?
I guess it's re-stating Antoine de Saint Exupéry's "It seems that perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove".
I don't think that's quite right. To me it sounds more like: "In a harsh enough environment, the wrong kind of perfectionism can distract from matters more pertinent to your survival."
The quote needn't be taken as approving. Muad'Dib wanted to avoid the jihad he unleashed, even though he eventually came to see it as necessary. If you take it as neutral reporting of how the Fremen think, it could be taken as a comment on how circumstances shape your thinking, or as a caution against allowing no-longer-extant circumstances to constrain you.
This is sort of what I say to remind myself that having read some of something isn't a sufficient reason to finish it.
I pasted it into Google just now and found this article quoting it in a similar context.
I agree. It's not... quite.... complete.
Let's chop it off. (Let's keep it at 0 points).
There, now it's complete.
Is this a recommendation or a warning?
Can't it be both?
In this case that roughly translates to self contradictory advice. Do and do not do. There are plenty of quotes that make just as much sense when reversed and in such cases the quotes themselves contain very information and any actual wisdom must be entirely embedded in the algorithm that selects which quoted meaning to apply in which case.
You can't simultaneously say "aim higher on the margin" and "aim lower on the margin", but you can say "don't aim too high" and "don't aim too low" - or more simply "mind your aim point". It is entirely possible that people miss on both sides and they are simply not being careful enough to avoid either extreme.
Consider it a recommendation to be aware of the trade off, not a recommendation to bias your decisions in any particular direction.
Probably a duplicate, but I can't find a previous version:
H. L. Mencken
It's in the wiki:
(but it's good enough that it can be repeated now and then...)
-- Paul Graham
Calibration is awesome. However, note that without an audience like the NSA or Paul Graham, this is probably sub-optimal signaling.
I have to say, I haven't found calibration hugely useful. It's certainly nice, but for the most part people ignore you.
Does it give you better answers, though?
Sure, but I find that most of what I do is not dependent on small probability increments.
Being well-calibrated is great, but it sounds like rtm isn't even wrong in retrospect. I much prefer to say wrong things very loudly so that I will discover when I am in error.
Judea Pearl (Causality)
Gary Drescher (Good and Real)
Awesome.
I think this is also how the best standup comedians work.
David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity
tries
Yes, but it's also logically impossible.
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations.
Should "seen a god" there be "seem a god"?
More substantially, isn't this basically saying "Believe X because then you'll get status"?
I fixed it, thank you very much.
I interpreted it to mean that if you adhere to logical principles based on a rational view of reality, you will be better because you do so.
So, yes you're right. I would just change it to this: Do X because then you'll get status.
While status isn't the focus, it could (and likely will be) a product of what you're doing.
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations.
Terence Tao
Neal Stephenson, The Confusion
Funny, I guess, but how is it rationality related?
"Imaginary horses are much slower than the other kind." Pretending to have horses doesn't allow you any of the benefits of having a horse, such as going faster.
Ah, I guess I was reading it with the wrong inflection. Thanks.
That is quite rational. However, some studies have shown that imagining (pretending) one is doing physical exercise can help heal the body as well as doing physical exercise. I find children imagining themselves as animals while playing often develop some amazing skills of both mind and body.
Long way of saying the power of our minds can sometimes stretch the known limits of rationality.
I wouldn't say that "stretches the known limits of rationality." If imagination can help physical development, I desire to believe that imagination can help physical development. If imagination does not help physical development, I desire to believe that imagination does not help physical development.
-Voltaire (usually presented as, "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.")
Daniel Abraham, The Dragon's Path
Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions
The most beautiful explanation of Hansonian signalling I've seen.
With all due respect to Robin, this very thread supplies prior art for this idea :).
Having an inkling about the existence of gravity is different from figuring out the motions of all the planets. Hanson actually built the idea into useful models. He gets the name. :D
Saint Augustine of Hippo, Confessions
George Bernard Shaw
"Heads I Win, Tails You Lose" by Venkat Rao
It's also a good introduction to Nietzsche. (I find that most introductions to Nietzsche are good as long as they are humorous and informal enough that they wouldn't be used in philosophy class.)
-- Babylon 5, "Soul Hunter"
Somewhat weakened by the fact that the show leaves it open whether or not Delenn was right.
In show, she more-or-less was.
Hmm? She didn't have any real evidence other than a perceived degradation of Minbari society.
I was thinking of whatever test they did to determine that Sinclair has a Minbari soul.
A specific Minbari soul, picking him out with stunning accuracy.
-edit never mind answering my question would have probably involved spoilers.
I GUESS WE'RE MARKING SPOILERS FOR FIFTEEN YEAR OLD TELEVISION SHOWS
All the test showed is that Sinclair had Valen's DNA. Except Valen is Sinclair after some Minbari DNA splicing; the reverse of what Delenn did.
Stable time loops for the win.
The fantasy doesn't sound quaint - it sounds like a depressing story of inevitable decay and without even the possibility of allowing the creation of new (ensouled) individuals even in the case where those alive remove their vulnerability to death. The Soul Hunter presents a reality where souls evidently become generated each generation in the same way that they were before.
-E.H. Gombrich
– Bertrand Russell
Bertrand Russell
That advice seems to be predicated on poor reasoning. Not only are most eccentric opinions that have been held not accepted, those that gain the benefit of the eccentric opinions on their way to being accepted are not necessarily those that first hold them.
Good point.
Not necessarily, but it's often an effective way to gain status by being seen as visionary.
I'd recommend the alternative of gaining enough status and power that you can easily take credit for other people's opinions when you have reason to believe they will be adopted.
I don't see how a method of gaining status that begins with an unelucidated "First, gain status" is very helpful.
It's rather a lot more useful than "Be weird because it doesn't always backire".
There are some social moves that do only work once you have sufficient status to pull them off. Gaining more status through differentiation is one of those.
It's bad advice if the advice is supposed to help a particular person get ahead. If you want a new good opinion to be generated, give that advice to ten thousand people.
I gave up trying to parse that sentence after the third attempt. Punctuation exists for a reason! :-)
No no, it's not that bad if you try to figure out where the commas go:
So to rewrite with fewer negations:
Jonathan Bernstein
Working in market research, I have to resist the impulse to point this out practically every day.
Dara O'Briain
Dara O'Briain
-Retsupurae
That's exactly how the character "The Sphinx" in the film "Mystery Men" delivered all his wise-sounding lines. Eventually it becomes a bit predictable to the D-list "superhero" characters that he's trying to serve as a mentor to.
Edit: See DSimon's reply for the dialogue.
[...]
[...]
[...]
Thanks. :)
When learning, you must know how to make the clear distinction between what is ideology and what is genuine knowledge.
There is no such thing as good and evil. There is what is right and what is bad, what is consistent and what is wrong.
-- "Behaviour Guide (in order to avoid mere survival)", Jean Touitou
Are these two different quotes, or were they juxtaposed like this in the original? (i.e. "You must distinguish between ideology and knowledge. -> There is no such thing as good and evil.")
The first part seems rather applause lighty; I think almost everyone agrees that we need to distinguish between ideology and fact; actually doing so is the hard part, and the quote doesn't provide any interesting insights in how best to go about doing that.
True, however if I recall correctly, one of the lessons in The Teacher's Password not everything is about the answer. A lot of the time I gain more from the question than being served the answer directly. We need more insights anyway, so how DO we distinguish fact from ideology? People claim that the earth was created by God in 6 days, and others claim The Big Bang caused the creation of what we know as the universe, but since I haven't discovered either of these on my own, how can I be sure that either is true?
This is probably me projecting, but I took it to be about distinguishing between those which make claims about reality and those which don't.
For example: If somebody says "You should be democratic, because the people have the right to rule themselves" - that's not even claiming to be a fact, just an ethical position. If they say "You should be democratic, because democratic countries do better economically," then that's a about the real world, which I could even test if I wanted to.
In my admittedly limited experience, it seems that a lot of confusion in the greatest mind-killing subjects (politics and spirituality) come from people not properly distinguishing between those two kinds of statements.
And that issue often becomes circular. People often have both ethical and factual reasons to take a political position, and they don't clearly split them apart in their mind, each reason propagating to reinforce the other.
I'll take a personal example : I oppose death penalty for many reason, but among them one is ethical (I don't approve of voluntary terminating a human life for ethical reasons) and one is more factual (I believe as a fact, from various statistics, that death penalty does not deter crime). But it requires a conscientious effort from myself (and I didn't always do it, and I suspect many don't do it) to not have each of two reasons reinforcing the other with a feedback loop.
The interesting question is how you evaluate proposed big changes. Democracy has turned out to be a moderately good idea, but trying it out for the first few times was something of a leap in the dark.
There are reasons for thinking that democracy might work better than monarchy-- generally speaking, a bad ruler can do more damage than not having a great ruler can do good, but is the theoretical reason good enough?
From what I heard, the person who established Athenian democracy did so after first overthrowing the previous ruler in a civil war, having concluded that becoming powerful was the best way to become a Great Man. He then reasoned that, since everyone should strive to be a Great Man, then everyone else would also be obliged to do the same thing he just did - which would mean endless civil wars. Which would be bad. So he came up with the clever solution of making everyone a ruler, so they could all be Great Men without having to kill each other first. Hence, democracy.
Or something like that, anyway. Wikipedia doesn't say all that much, so I suspect that the story I remember is more story than actual history.
BEHAVIOR GUIDE (in order to avoid mere survival) Intended for younger generations by JEAN TOUITOU
That is the entire original quote, but not all felt like it belonged here. It's all part of the same, I think.
I like the first line.
The second line, though... what on Earth is the difference between "good" and "right" or between "evil" and "bad"? They mean the same thing; "good" and "evil" have just migrated to slightly higher-brow-sounding language.
I'm not trying to defend the quote, but there are no evil microscopes. There are useful microscopes and not useful microscopes.
I'm confused why the original quote contrasts right with bad, rather than with evil, but I think that's what Touitou is trying to say.
A few from M:TG flavour text.
When nothing remains, everything is equally possible. ~One with Nothing
"Believe in the ideal, not the idol." -Serra ~Worship
"War glides on the simplest updrafts while peace struggles against hurricane winds. It is the way of the world. It must change." ~Commander Eesha
True in the sense that 0=0.
I understood it as advocating a maximum ignorance prior. In hindsight, it's an MT:G card, so probably not.
Also I don't recommend throwing out what you know to have a maximum ignorance prior.
Incidentally, the card itself is notorious for being among the most useless cards ever printed and routinely shows up on "worst card ever" lists.
To a large extent it already has. Humans are much more peaceful now than they have been in the past. This is part of a large set of broad trends. See Pinker's excellent "The Better Angels of Our Nature". At this point, I'm not sure this quote is really accurate.
I must admit that one of my favorite quotes from M:tG is one of the less rational ones:
-- Sizzle
-- Fodder Cannon
The card art of Browse gives this gem, which I think I may have posted before:
But the best flavor text ever is still Martyrs' Tomb.
I don't know, I find the Wall of Vapor quote inspirational, as well:
Tony Dye
From your link:
"Bit meters per second" or "megabyte kilometers per hour" would be a better measure than just "bits per second".
Are there useful generalizations which can be derived from this?
If you download a LOT of old movies onto your PC, a truck full of old tapes heading towards you, could be a great internet speed up from your perspective.
Or a pizza delivering man, he could bring you some files in less time than the email.
At least in principle, some "station wagons full of tapes", cargo planes in the sky full of USB flash drives and pedestrians running on the streets with a massive data storage devices in their bags - they all together could increase the network bandwidth we need.
"Shut up and multiply" works for practical purposes too.
(One of my favorite shut-up-and-multiply results: automatic dishwashers cost less than 2 euro per hour saved, so everyone should have one.)
Everyone in the western world you mean ? Because 2 euros per hour is much more than the minimal wage in many countries. Sorry for nit-picking but forgetting that more than half of the world doesn't live in as much comfort as we do is a frequent bias (probably a consequence of availability bias, we don't see them as often).
True, but "everyone on LW" seems to be fairly defensible.
You're assuming away a lot of individual variation in time spent manually washing dishes.
Joel Stickley, How To Write Badly Well
The human understanding is no dry light, but receives an infusion from the will and affections; whence proceed sciences which may be called "sciences as one would." For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes. Therefore he rejects difficult things from impatience of research; sober things, because they narrow hope; the deeper things of nature, from superstition; the light of experience, from arrogance and pride, lest his mind should seem to be occupied with things mean and transitory; things not commonly believed, out of deference to the opinion of the vulgar. Numberless, in short, are the ways, and sometimes imperceptible, in which the affections color and infect the understanding.
-- Francis Bacon, Novum Organum (Aphorism XLIX), 1620. (1863 translation by Spedding, Ellis and Heath. You should read the whole thing, it's all this good.)
-- Nicholas Gurewitch (creator of Perry Bible Fellowship)
– Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy p. 98
Bertie is a goldmine of rationality quotes.
Also don't confuse "logically coherent" with "true".
Leonardo da Vinci
-Greg Egan, Distress
Richard Feynman, in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman, chapter entitled "Mixing Paints".
-Bengali proverb
I've heard a theory that half truths told with intent to deceive are more damaging than outright lies because if someone is deceived, they're more likely to blame themselves.
Also, you're more likely to notice that an outright lie is false.
Alison Sudol (singer/composer) The Minnow and the Trout
So? We're also 'starstuff'.
John Leslie, The End of the World, p. 242 (paperback)
(He is not talking about about trials in the "randomized controlled trial" sense but rather in the sampling sense.)
-Vi Hart, Doodling in Math: Spirals, Fibonacci, and Being a Plant- Part 3 of 3
Mencius Moldbug
Everything after "If so - definitely, keep it. If not..." is (a) context-dependent and (b) debatable.
Scott Aaronson
— Arkady and Boris Strugatsky
-a kid named Noah. (Hat-tip to Yvain.)
I write only when inspiration strikes. Fortunately it strikes every morning at nine o'clock sharp.
-- W. Somerset Maugham
Ohh man, that would be convenient... Actually, given my current schedule, it'd be pretty irritating. I'd spend my mornings sitting in class, fuming that I couldn't just leave and go write all day.
I think what he meant is sit down and get to work on a regular schedule, "inspired" or not. c.f. this.
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Occasions
Arthur Schopenhauer, Counsels and Maxims
--Razib Khan, here
Dindo Capello, as quoted in Truth in 24 (2009 film).
-- .Helmuth von Moltke the Elder (1800-1891) (paraphrased)
-- Steven Kaas