Dustin comments on Rationally Irrational - Less Wrong

-11 Post author: HungryTurtle 07 March 2012 07:21PM

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

Comments (414)

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

Comment author: TimS 07 March 2012 07:34:07PM *  14 points [-]

Some of the things (like eating healthier and exercising more) I did not let go, because I felt the damages of my role reversal were less than the damages of their habits; however, other ideas, arguments, beliefs, I did let go because they did not seem worth the pain I was causing my parents.

Why call this losing instead of winning-by-choosing-your-battles? I don't think members of this community would endorse always telling others "I know a better way to do that" whenever one thinks this is true. At the very least, always saying that risks being wrong because (1) you were instrumentally incorrect about what works better or (2) you did not correctly understand the other person's goals.

More generally, the thing you are labeling rationality is what we might call straw vulcan rationality. We don't aspire to be emotionless computrons. We aspire to be better at achieving our goals.

Eliezer wrote a cute piece about how pathetic Spock was to repeatedly predict things had <1% of succeeding when those sorts of things always worked. As outsiders, we can understand why the character said that, but from inside Spock-the-person, being repeated wrong like that shows something is wrong in how one is thinking. Can't find that essay, sorry.


It doesn't bother me, but some people will be bothered by the non-standard font and spacing. I'd tell you how to fix it, but I don't actually know.

Comment author: Dustin 07 March 2012 11:55:22PM 0 points [-]

I don't know if this is what you were thinking of, but here is what lukeprog wrote about Spock.

Comment author: sixes_and_sevens 09 March 2012 12:38:46PM 3 points [-]

I believe this is what he's thinking of.

Comment author: TimS 09 March 2012 01:29:47PM 2 points [-]

What kind of tragic fool gives four significant digits for a figure that is off by two orders of magnitude?

That's it. Thanks.