Rationality Quotes May 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- Do not quote yourself
- Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB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 (696)
-celandine13 (Hat-tip to Frank Adamek. In addition, the linked article is so good that I had trouble picking something to put in rationality quotes; in other words, I recommend it.)
I already upvoted this but want to emphasize that the article is really good.
Another quote from the same piece, just before that para:
I really, really like this. Thanks for posting it!
To elucidate the "bug model" a bit, consider "bugs" not in a single piece of software, but in a system. The following is drawn from my professional experience as a sysadmin for large-scale web applications, but I've tried to make it clear:
Suppose that you have a web server; or better yet, a cluster of servers. It's providing some application to users — maybe a wiki, a forum, or a game. Most of the time when a query comes in from a user's browser, the server gives a good response. However, sometimes it gives a bad response — maybe it's unusually slow, or it times out, or it gives an error or an incomplete page instead of what the user was looking for.
It turns out that if you want to fix these sorts of problems, considering them merely to be "flakiness" and stopping there is not enough. You have to actually find out where the errors are coming from. "Flaky web server" is an aggregate property, not a simple one; specifically, it is the sum of all the different sources of error, slowness, and other badness — the disk contention; the database queries against un-indexed tables; the slowly failing NIC; the excess load from the web spider that's copying the main page ten times a second looking for updates; the design choice of retrying failed transactions repeatedly, thus causing overload to make itself worse.
There is some fact of the matter about which error sources are causing more failures than others, too. If 1% of failed queries are caused by a failing NIC, but 90% are caused by transactions timing out due to slow database queries to an overloaded MySQL instance, then swapping the NIC out is not going to help much. And two flaky websites may be flaky for completely unrelated reasons.
Talking about how flaky or reliable a web server is lets you compare two web servers side-by-side and decide which one is preferable. But by itself it doesn't let you fix anything. You can't just point at the better web server and tell the worse one, "Why can't you be more like your sister?" — or rather, you can, but it doesn't work. The differences between the two do matter, but you have to know which differences matter in order to actually change things.
To bring the analogy back to human cognitive behavior: yes, you can probably measure which of two people is "more rational" than the other, or even "more intelligent". But if someone wants to become more rational, they can't do it by just trying to imitate an exemplary rational person — they have to actually diagnose what kinds of not-rational they are being, and find ways to correct them. There is no royal road to rationality; you have to actually struggle with (or work around) the specific bugs you have.
I agree with the general thrust of the essay (that broad, fuzzy labels like "bad at" are more useful if reduced to specific bug descriptions,) but I'll note that being aware of the specific bugs that cause people to make the mistakes they're making does not stop me from thinking of people as stupid. If a person's bugs are numerous, obtrusive, and difficult to correct, I'm going to end up thinking of them as stupid even if I can describe every bug.
I read the article because of your post; thank you.
(obviously the grandparent deserves credit too).
Author used to post here as __, but I think her account's been deleted.
ETA: removed username as I realized this comment kind of frustrates the presumable point of the account deletion in the first place.
I've been trying to change my impulse to think "this person is an idiot!" into "this person is a noob," because the term still kinda has that slightly useful predictive meaning that suggests incompetence, but it also contains the idea that they have the potential to get better, rather than being inherently incompetent.
--Peter Thiel, on 60 Minutes
Cheryl Strayed, Wild
Albus Dumbledore
Sometimes I check the original and am surprised by how little I actually diverged from Rowling's Dumbledore.
It took MatthewBaker's reply to make me realize you were talking about your character and not yourself.
PHOENIXS FATE, was something I don't think Rowling's Dumbledore could have done but up until Dumbledore lost the idiot ball in recent chapters I fully agree with you :)
-Seneca
In this case, isn't it equally true that no wind is unfavourable?
"The Way is easy for those who have no utility function." -- Marcello Herreshoff
Not sure, this came up in a few previous conversations. If an agent is almost certain that it's completely indifferent to everything, the most important thing it could do is to pursue the possibility that it's not indifferent to something, that is to work primarily on figuring out its preference on the off chance that its current estimate might turn out to be wrong. So it still takes over the universe and builds complicated machines (assuming it has enough heuristics to carry out this line of reasoning).
Say, "Maybe 1957 is prime after all, and hardware used previously to conclude that it's not was corrupted," which is followed by a sequence of experiments that test the properties of preceding experiments in more and more detail, and then those experiments are investigated in turn, and so on and so forth, to the end of time.
That depends on whether your goal is to travel or to arrive.
How a game theorist buys a car (on the phone with the dealer):
From The Predictioneer's Game, page 7.
Other car-buying tips from Bueno de Mesquita, in case you're about to buy a car:
* Figure out exactly what car you want to buy by searching online before making any contact with dealerships.
* Don't be afraid to purchase a car from a distant dealership--the manufacturer provides the warranty, not the dealer.
* Be sure to tell each dealer you will be sharing the price they quote you with subsequent dealers.
* Don't take shit from dealers who tell you "you can't buy a car over the phone" or do anything other than give you their number. If a dealer is stonewalling, make it quite clear that you're willing to get what you want elsewhere.
* Arrive at the lowest-price dealer just before 5:00 PM to close the deal. In the unlikely event that the dealer changes their terms, go for the next best price.
From my limited experience with buying cars, as well as from theoretical considerations, this won't work because you lack the pre-commitment to buy at the price offered. Once they give you a favorable price, you can try to push it even further downwards, possibly by continuing to play the dealerships against each other. So they'll be afraid to offer anything really favorable. (The market for new cars is a confusopoly based on concealing the information about the dealers' exact profit margins for particular car models, which is surprisingly well-guarded insider knowledge. So once you know that a certain price is still profitable for them, it can only be a downward ratchet.)
The problem can be solved by making the process double-blind, i.e. by sending the message anonymously through a credible middleman, who communicates back anonymous offers from all dealers. (The identities of each party are revealed to the other only if the offer is accepted and an advance paid.) Interestingly, in Canada, someone has actually tried to commercialize this idea and opened a website that offers the service for $50 or so (unhaggle.com); I don't know if something similar exists in the U.S. or other countries. (They don't do any sort of bargaining, brokering, deal-hunting, etc. on your behalf -- just the service of double-anonymous communication, along with signaling that your interest is serious because you've paid their fee.) From my limited observations, it works pretty well.
I take he does not discuss whether he actually ever did that.
He further claims to have once saved $1,200 over the price quoted on the Internet for a car he negotiated for his daughter, who was 3000 miles away at the time.
Apparently being a game theory expert does not prevent one from being a badass negotiator.
Why did you guess otherwise?
Typically people describing clever complex schemes involving interacting with many other people do not actually do them. Mesquita has previously tripped some flags for me (publishing few of his predictions), so I had no reason to give him special benefit of the doubt.
Maybe many of his predictions are classified because they are for the government?
What does he mean by "price quoted on the Internet"? If it's the manufacturer's suggested retail price, then depending on the car model and various other factors, saving $1,200 over this price sounds unremarkable at best, and a badly losing proposition at worst. If it was the first price quoted by the dealer, it could be even worse -- at least where I live, dealers will often start with some ridiculous quote that's even higher that the MSRP.
Having bought/leased a few new and used cars over the years, I immediately think of a number of issues with this, mainly because this trips their "we don't do it this way, so we would rather not deal with you at all" defense. This reduces the number of dealers willing to engage severely. Probably is still OK in a big city, but not where there are only 2 or 3 dealerships of each kind around. There are other issues, as well:
Bypassing the salesperson and getting to talk to the manager directly is not easy, as it upsets their internal balance of fairness. The difference is several hundred dollars.
The exact model may not be available unless it's common, and the wait time might be more than you are prepared to handle. Though the dealers do share the inventory and exchange cars, they are less likely to bother if they know that the other place will get the same request.
They are not likely to give you the best deal possible, because they are not invested in the sale (use sunk cost to your advantage)
They are not likely to believe that you will do as you say, because why should they? There is nothing for you to lose by changing your mind. In fact, once you have all the offers, you ought to first consider what to do next, not blindly follow through on the promise.
This approach, while seemingly neutral, comes across as hostile, because it's so impersonal. This has extra cost in human interactions.
"Searching online" is no substitute to kicking the tires for most people. The last two cars I leased I found on dealers' lots after driving around (way after I researched the hell out of it online), and they were not the ones I thought I would get.
And the last one: were this so easy, the various online car selling outfits, like autobytel would do so much better.
So, while this strategy is possibly better than the default of driving around the lots and talking to the salespeople, it is far from the best way to buy a car.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson, probably not apocryphal (at first, this comment said "possibly apocryphal since I can't find it anywhere except collections of quotes")
http://www.smh.com.au/business/clive-palmer-plans-to-build-titanic-ii-20120430-1xtrc.html
--Chinese Tale
I always use the metaphor of the fast car to distinguish between intelligence and rationality.
That's a very handy assortment of fallacies. Where did you find it?
I first saw the story in "School in Carmarthen", which I would absolutely recommend to everyone, except it's in Russian. I thought there should probably be an English translation of the Chinese tale, so I googled it up by keywords.
The tale is apparently the origin story behind a common Chinese idiom that literally translates as "south house north rut”, and which means acting in a way that defeats one's purpose.
--Hazel, Tales of MU
-- Anais Nin
This misses the point. There shouldn't be any mystery left. And that'll be okay.
With perfect knowledge there would be no mystery left about the real world. But that is not what "sense of wonder and mystery" refers to. It describes an emotion, not a state of knowledge. There's no reason for it to die.
You can't stop looking for flaws even after you've found all of them, otherwise you might miss one.
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox
--Mencius Moldbug, on belief as attire and conspicuous wrongness.
Source.
This reminds me of the following passage from We Need to Talk About Kevin by Lionel Shriver:
Possible additional factor: The truth is frequently boring-- it helps to add some absurdity just to get people's attention. Once you've got people's attention, proof of loyalty can come into play.
Also relevant.
More quotes by Mencius Moldbug:
They are all from the article A Reservationist Epistemology
Surely the actual Bayesian rational mind's conclusion is that the attacker will (probably) always show a blue ball, nothing to do with the urn at all.
Solomonoff prior gives nonzero probability to the attacker deceiving us. But humans are not very good at operating with such probabilities precisely.
I just facepalmed the hardest I've ever done while reading Unqualified Reservations. That is, not very hard - Mencius is nothing if not a charming and polite author - but still. Maybe he really ought to read at least one Sequence!
Could we start that reading with the classic Bayes' Theorem example? Suppose 1% of women have breast cancer, 80% of mammograms on a cancerous woman will detect it, 9.6% on an uncancerous woman will be false positives. Suppose woman A gets a mammogram which indicates cancer. What are the odds she has cancer?
p(A|X) = p(X|A)p(A)/(p(X|A)p(A)+p(X|~A)p(~A)) = 7.8% Hooray?
Now suppose women B, C, D, E, F... Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, etc., the entire patient list getting screened today, all test positive for cancer. Is the probability that woman A has cancer still 7.8%? Bayes' rule, with the priors above, still says "yes"! You need more complicated prior probabilities (e.g. what are the odds that the test equipment is malfunctioning?) before your evidence can tell you what's actually likely to be happening. But those more complicated, more accurate priors would have (very slightly) changed our original p(A|X) as well!
It's not that Bayesian updating is wrong. It's just that Bayes' theorem never allows you to have a non-zero posterior probability coming from a zero prior, and to make any practical problem tractable everybody ends up implicitly assuming huge swaths of zero prior probability.
– Kurt Vonnegut
I've been looking up some American people (radical activists/left-wing theorists/etc) whom I knew little about but felt surprised about how they're a byword and evil incarnate to every right-wing blogger out there. I don't have any political or moral judgment about what I've read in regards to those (or at least let's pretend that I don't), but incidentally I found a nice quote:
Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
Relatedly, if we don't want to think about a situation, we frequently convince ourselves that we're powerless to change it.
Less relatedly, I am growing increasingly aware of the gulf between what is implied by talking about "people" in the first person plural, and talking about "people" in the third person plural.
And here's some rather... more spicy stuff from him:
Alinsky is interesting to me because it seems like he was one of the first to notice a new, likely to be effective method of social change - and he used up all the effectiveness of the technique.
I wouldn't expect non-violent protest (in America) to be capable of that kind of social change in the future, because those in power have learned how to deal with it effectively (mass arrest for minor infractions and an absolute refusal to engage in political grandstanding). By this point, mass protests are quite ineffective at creating social change here in the US (consider the relatively pointlessness of the Occupy movement)
I'm sure there are other examples of techniques of social change becoming totally ineffective as authorities learned how to respond better, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.
Norbert Wiener
I'm going to be unfair here - there is a limit to how much specificity one can expect in a brief quote but: In what sense is the difficulty "mathematical in essence", and just how ignorant of how much mathematics are the physiologists in question? Consider a problem where the exact solution of the model equations turns out to be an elliptic integral - but where the practically relevant range is adequately represented by a piecewise linear approximation, or by a handful of terms in a power series. Would ignorance of the elliptic integral be a fatal flaw here?
Speaking as someone who is neither the OP nor Norbert Wiener, I think even the task of posing an adequate mathematical model should not be taken for granted. Thousands of physiologists looked at Drosophila segments and tiger stripes before Turing, thousands of ecologists looked at niche differentiation before Tilman, thousands of geneticists looked at the geological spread of genes before Fisher and Kolmogorov, etc. In all these cases, the solution doesn't require math beyond an undergraduate level.
Also, concern over an exact solution is somewhat misplaced given that the greater parts of the error are going to come from the mismatch between model and reality and from imperfect parameter estimates.
― Brandon Mull, Fablehaven
The real sharp ones also learn from the mistakes of others.
Are you correcting the accuracy of the quotation, or commenting?
Others rarely collect enough data when making mistakes. Sometimes you need to go make the mistake yourself.
-David Wong, 5 Ways to Spot a B.S. Political Story in Under 10 Seconds
I am consistently impressed by the quality of the writing that comes out of Cracked, especially relative to what one might expect given its appearance.
If "impact on your life" is the relevant criterion, then it seems to me Wong should be focusing on the broader mistake of watching the news in the first place. If the average American spent ten minutes caring about e.g. the Trayvon Martin case, then by my calculations that represents roughly a hundred lifetimes lost.
You have a funny definition of "lost". By that measure, JRR Tolkien is worse than a mass-murderer.
~ Zach Weiner, SMBC #2559
(1) Do people act more rationally when their interests are more directly concerned? (2) Are scientists' interests more directly concerned with winning grants than with making correct scientific inferences?
If the answer to both is "yes," then I think we should raise our confidence in jackal rituals relative to the current methodologies of statistical inference.
Fortunately for jackals, there's an unjustified independence assumption here. Other stuff I've read strongly suggests that the outcomes of published research are strongly influenced by the expectations of the researchers about future grant money.
Evelyn Baring, Earl of Cromer, Modern Egypt
The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder.
Wikiquotes: Huston Smith Wikipedia: Ralph Washinton Sockman
A short shoreline of wonder is a good sign that the island of knowledge is small.
Only while the island is smaller than half the world :-)
Anyway, I can always measure your shore and get any result I want.
No, you can only get an answer up to the limit imposed by the fact that the coastline is actually composed of atoms. The fact that a coastline looks like a fractal is misleading. It makes us forget that just like everything else it's fundamentally discrete.
This has always bugged me as a case of especially sloppy extrapolation.
Of course you can't really measure on an atomic scale anyway because you can't decide which atoms are part of the coast and which are floating in the sea. The fuzziness of the "coastline" definition makes measurement meaningless on scales even larger than single atoms and molecules, probably. So you're right, and we can't measure it arbitrarily large. It's just wordplay at that point.
The island of knowledge is composed of atoms? The shoreline of wonder is not a fractal?
Perhaps it's composed of atomic memes ?
I think this conversation just jumped one of the sharks that swim in the waters around the island of knowledge.
And assuming an arbitrarily large world, as the area of the island increases, the ratio of shoreline to area decreases, no? Not sure what that means in terms of the metaphor, though...
Eventually the island's population can't fit all at once on the shore, and so not everyone can gather new wonder.
Inspired by maia's post:
“When life gives you lemons, don’t make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back! Get mad! I don’t want your damn lemons, what the hell am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life’s manager! Make life rue the day it thought it could give Cave Johnson lemons! Do you know who I am? I’m the man who’s gonna burn your house down! With the lemons! I’m gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down!”
---Cave Johnson, Portal 2
When life gives you lemons, order miracle berries.
— Steven Kaas
Calvin, Calvin and Hobbes
When life gives you lemons, lemon canon.
"He says what we're all thinking!"
---GlaDOS, Portal 2, in response to above quote
I like lemons...
When life gives you lemons, be sure to say Thank-you politely.
-- American Gods by Neil Gaiman.
This quote hides a subtle equivocation, which it relies on to jump from "you have X" to "you do not have X" without us noticing.
If I have a map I can look at it, draw marks on it and make plans. I can also tear it to pieces and analyse it with a mass spectrometer without it damaging the territory. Make the map I start with more accurate and I can draw on it in more detail and make more accurate analysis. Make the map nearly perfect and I can get nearly perfect information from the map without destroying breaking anything in the territory. Moving from 'nearly perfect' to 'perfect' does not mean "Oh, actually you don't have one territory and also one map. You only have this one territory".
As a practical example consider a map of a bank I am considering robbing. I could have blueprint of the building layout. I could have detailed photographs. Or I could have a perfect to-scale clone of the building accurate in every detail. That 'map' sounds rather useful to me.
Imprecision is not the only purpose of a map.
It is not merely that a stock of true beliefs is vastly more likely to be helpful than a stock of false ones, but that the policy of aiming for the truth, of having and trying to satisfy a general (de dicto) desire for the truth—what we might simply call "critical inquiry"—is the best doxastic policy around. Anything else, as Charles Peirce correctly insists, lead to "a rapid deterioration of intellectual vigor."—Richard Joyce, The Myth of Morality (2001) p. 179.
-- Scott Aaronson
OTOH it could be that the "you" in the above knows little to nothing about computer simulation.
For example a moderately competent evolutionary virologist might have theory about how viruses spread genes across species, but have only a passing knowledge of LaTeX and absolutely no idea how to use bio-sim software.
Or worse, CAN explain, but their explanation demonstrates that lack of knowledge.
Oh, and Paul Graham again from the same piece:
-Jonathan Baron
David Wallace
This criticism of instrumentalism only works in so far as instrumentalism is descriptive, rather than prescriptive.
-Henry G. Felsen
xkcd
Because instead of pissing them off you get to terrify them?
-- Terry Pratchett, "Guards! Guards!"
I really like the character of Lord Vetinari. He's like a more successful version of Quirrell from HPMOR who decided that it's okay to have cynical beliefs but idealistic aims.
I really like this passage, and Vetinari in general, but I downvoted your quote simply because it's too long. It would be better if you could somehow condense it into a single paragraph.
~Paul Graham
Evelyn Baring, Earl of Cromer, Modern Egypt
"If God gives you lemons, you find a new God."
-- Powerthirst 2: Re-Domination
I maintain you should use the lemons as an offering to appease your angry new god.
Paul Graham, "Is It Worth Being Wise?" http://paulgraham.com/wisdom.html
Noticing this moment is important!
Of course, we shouldn't stop when we notice this. We should keep getting more specific, and we should begin testing whether we are mistaken.
-Tim Ferriss, The 4-Hour Workweek
Has anyone tried to put Ferriss's 4-Hour Workweek plan into practice? If so, did it make you better off than you were a month ago?
EDIT: Ferriss recommends (among other things) that readers invent and market a simple product that can be sold online and manufactured in China, yielding a steady income stream that requires little or no ongoing attention. There are dozens of anecdotes on his website and in his book that basically say "I heard that idea, I tried it, it worked, and now I'm richer and happier." These anecdotes (if true) indicate that the plan is workable for at least some people. What I don't see in these anecdotes is people who say "I really didn't think of myself as an entrepreneur, but I forced myself to slog through the exercises anyway, and then it worked for me!"
So, I'm trying to elicit that latter, more dramatic kind of anecdote from LWers. It would help me decide if most of the value in Ferriss's advice lies in simply reminding born entrepreneurs that they're allowed to execute a simple plan, or if Ferriss's advice can also enable intelligent introverts with no particular grasp of the business world to cast off the shackles of office employment.
I have, and yes it made me much better off (although I wouldn't really describe it as a "plan", since its more "meta" than I think of "plans" as being.)
Some more anecdotal evidence.
Cool! So, what was your pre-4HWW lifestyle like, and how did it change?
There are other resources that recommend this practice. Steve Pavlina is currently running a series on passive income on his blog that looks interesting as well.
I don't know if the recommendations made in 4-Hour workweek or that blog are sustainable in the real world without a large amount of "luck".
"It is indeed true that he [Hume] claims that 'reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.' But a slave, it should not be forgotten, does virtually all the work."
-Alan Carter, Pluralism and Projectivism
-- Jorge Luis Borges, "Dr. Américo Castro is Alarmed"
(Pliny, not Plinty.)
The article is not about antisemitism, by the way. It's about one Dr. Castro's alarm over a "linguistic disorder in Buenos Aires" — i.e. a putative decline in the quality of Argentinian Spanish usage.
Thank you, corrected! Yes, it is a wonderful demolition of Castro's pretentious pronouncements on the Argentine dialect, which contains some of the finest examples of Borges' erudite snark. ("...the doctor appeals to a method that we must either label sophistical, to avoid doubting his intelligence, or naive, to avoid doubting his integrity...")
-- Lion Kimbro, "The Anarchist's Principle"
Forgive my stupidity, but I'm not sure I get this one. Should I read it as "[...] it's probably for the same reasons you haven't done it yourself."?
I think it just means "you should do it", which is only sometimes the appropriate response.
Quintilian
-Douglas Hofstadter (posted with gwern's "permission")
Both operations seem vitally necessary, but he's probably right that you should start with the latter.
Has this actually been working?
Nassim Taleb
-Carl Winfeld
"In war you will generally find that the enemy has at any time three courses of action open to him. Of those three, he will invariably choose the fourth." —Helmuth Von Moltke
(quoted in "Capturing the Potential of Outlier Ideas in the Intelligence Community", via Bruce Schneier)
There is a corollary of the Law of Fives in Discordianism, as follows: Whenever you think that there are only two possibilities (X, or else Y), there are in fact at least five: X; Y; X and Y; neither X nor Y; and J, something you hadn't thought of before.
-- Robert Anton Wilson
Contrarians of LW, if you want to be successful, please don't follow this strategy. Chances are that many people have raised the same possibility before, and anyway raising possibilities isn't Bayesian evidence, so you'll just get ignored. Instead, try to prove that the stuff is bullshit. This way, if you're right, others will learn something, and if you're wrong, you will have learned something.
For what it's worth, some context:
— http://media.hyperreal.org/zines/est/intervs/raw.html
Wilson had a tendency to come across as a skeptic among mystics and a mystic among skeptics.
I doubt I can do much to prove a lot of the 'core' concepts of rationality, but I can do a lot to point people towards it and shake up their belief that there isn't such a proof.
(1) Insisting that those who disagree with you prove their opinions sets too high a bar for them. Being light means surrendering to the truth ASAP.
(2) Raising possibilities is Bayesian evidence, assuming the possibility-raiser is a human, not a random-hypothesis generator.
Yeah, and if the possibility-raiser is a human who would have provided evidence if they had any, then raising possibilities without evidence is Bayesian evidence in the other direction :-)
I think "try to prove" was an importantly different word choice from "prove" in cousin_it's comment. The point is that in the context of a "new age" movement, it may be enough to raise the possibility; people really may not be thinking about it. In the context of Less Wrong, that is not usually enough; people are often already thinking about evidence for and against.
-Kurt Vonnegut
Then you can commit suicide without worries.
Or try to vary life among other dimensions than (un)"examined"; most people do feel they live lifes worth living, after all.
(In general, I'm not sure we should be advocating suicide in all but the most extreme cases.)
I'm fairly sure gwern was being glib
The Psychologist Who Wouldn't Do Awful Things to Rats by James Tiptree
"Well it's alright for you, Confucius, living in 5th Century feudal China. Between all the documentation I have to go through at work, and all the blogs I'm following while pretending to work, and all the textbooks I have to get through before my next assignment deadline, I don't have time to read!"
-G.K. Chesterton
Related: this slide
--Steve Sailer, commenting on cultural changes and words
Source.
-- Paul Graham
(Arguably a decent philosophy of life, if a bit harshly expressed for my taste.)
Hey, I can hack and whine at the same time!
Attempting this just reallocates all whining to being about inability to start hacking.
Kane: Quit griping!
Lambert: I like griping.
(from Alien)
Paul Graham “What You’ll Wish You’d Known” http://paulgraham.com/hs.html
Just because you are choosing between two theories, doesn't mean one of them is right.
Atheism is an excellent excuse for skipping church.
Believing there's no gold under your yard is an excellent excuse for not digging it up.
Almost the same as the one Eliezer used here
The quote in that link makes a good point: If one gives you an excuse to be lazy, then you might be privileging the hypothesis; it could be that it was only raised to the level of attention so that you can avoid work. Thus, the lazy choice really does get a big hit to its prior probability for being lazy.
But it's still false that the other one is probably right. In general, if a human is choosing between two theories, they're both probably insanely wrong. For rationalists, you can charitably drop "insanely" from that description.
Reversed stupidity is not intelligence!
http://xkcd.com/1050/
I think that the relevant distinction is "is it really horribly unpleasant and I make no progress no matter how long I spend and I don't find correct output aesthetically pleasing."
"Weird" is a statement about your understanding of people's pride, not a statement about people's pride.
Proud of not learning math includes math like algebra or conversation of units. That sort of math, which might be taught in elementary school, is practically useful in daily life. Being proud of not knowing that kind of math is profoundly anti-learning. The attitude applies equally to learning anything, from reading to history to car mechanics.
Something a not-especially-mathsy friend of mine said a while back:
Then how do you explain, in your model, the comic's implicit observation that people do not apply this same attitude to to learning to play music, cook, or speak a foreign language? Let's try to fit reality here, not just rag on people for being "anti-learning" in the same way others might speak of someone being "anti-freedom".
-Hilary Putnam
One quote per post, please.
Edit: Belated thanks!
-Bas van Fraassen
--Heartiste (the blogger formerly known as Roissy), on useful stereotypes. Source.
"Our gods are dead. Ancient Klingon warriors slew them a millenia ago; they were more trouble than they were worth."
As badass as this bit of Klingon mythology may be, I'm not sure I see the relevance to rationalism. If I understand correctly, then what was considered "more trouble than they were worth" were the actual, really existing gods themselves, and not the Klingons' belief in imagined gods.
I was thinking in terms of moral realism and appropriate ambition rather than atheism or epistemology. The right response to a tyrannical or dangerous deity is to find a way to get rid of it if possible, rather than coming up with reasons why it's not really so bad.
- David Mamet
ETA: Gwern checked the book and posted the relevant section below. I got it backwards-- seven to twelve are the ages most likely to die. Six and under are more likely to survive.
Actually, there's something rather like that in Deep Survival, a book that's mostly about wilderness survival. IIRC, six to twelve year olds are more likely to survive than adults, and it's because of less fear of embarrassment.
However, the author didn't go into a lot of details about which mistakes the adults make-- I think it was that the kids seek cover, but the adults make bad plans and insist on following through with them.
Downloading the book, pg236, you forgot one interesting detail:
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Valley_of_bad_rationality ?
Walter Lewin
-- illdoc1 on YouTube
I'm not sure I get this. Could you explain, please?
— Kilmore Free Press; Kilmore, Victoria, Australia; 14 December 1916.
A version of this story is found in Aleister Crowley's Magick in Theory and Practice, and a paraphrase is quoted in Robert Anton Wilson's Masks of the Illuminati, attributed to a fictionalized Crowley; that version may be found here.
Love the story, but the punchline shouldn't be spoiled in the title!
Evelyn Baring, Earl of Cromer, Modern Egypt
-- C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (from memory -- I may have the exact phrasing wrong).
You can replace "goodness" in this sentence with almost anything that tends to get flippantly rejected without thought.
Good memory. The original reads:
Not sure if finding something funny in the context of a joke necessarily leads to one not taking it seriously in other contexts. [E.g. when xkcd and smbc make science jokes I don't think my belief in the science they are referencing diminishes.]
When xkcd and smbc make science jokes, they're real jokes written by clever humans.
Flippancy is more like Dell's recent "shut up bitch" scandal and the it's a joke, laugh reactions to it. Mads Christensen presented no substantive evidence that women are unable to contribute to IT, he just tried to train the crowd to regard the very idea of a capable woman as if it were funny.
The bit about "trained to act as if" is very astute. The same training can be applied to overvaluing things with little or no apparent value.
-- Warren Ellis, Transmetropolitan
- Laura van Dernoot Lipsky
-- Alcatraz Smedry in Alcatraz versus the Evil Librarians, by Brandon Sanderson.
That did not go in anything like the direction I expected. :-)
Edmund Burke on Richard Price, in "Reflections on the Revolution in France" which I am reading for the first time. This Richard Price, who is fascinating. Here is the sermon Burke was complaining about.
--John Derbyshire, source
Relevant.
Yet more of St. George:
Notes on the Way
I find that hard to believe. I would expect even a wasp to notice this.
Yes, before anyone pitches in with that observation, M.M. would surely quote the above with some glee. I'm confident that he'd refrain from posting the essay's ending, though:
[1] Okay, that's the one bit Orwell got wrong... maybe. Industrial murder did mark everything forever, though.
I don't see how this brutality was lacking when humans were more religiously observant. Furthermore, the quote seems to argue for religion.
Meaning the conclusion and the conclusion's reasoning are both wrong.
Not much revolutionary or counter-revolutionary terror, no death camps, comparatively little secret police. Little police and policing in general, actually; you could ride from one end of Europe to another without any prior arrangements, and if you looked alright everyone would let you in. The high and mighty being content with merely existing at the top of traditional "divinely ordained" hierarchy and not having the Will zur Macht that enables really serious tyranny, not attempting to forge new meanings and reality while dragging their subjects to violent insanity.
I agree that it was a cruel, narrow-minded and miserable world that denied whole classes and races a glimpse of hope without a second thought. But we went from one nightmare through a worse one towards a dubious future. There's not much to celebrate so far.
It argues for a thought pattern and attitude to life that Christianity also exhibits at the best of times, but against the belief in supernatural.
Much of this is simply not the case or ignores the largescale other problems. It may help to read Steven Pinker's book "The Better Angels of Our Nature" which makes clear how murder, and warfare (both large and small) were much more common historically.
"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."
Or that you've made an invalid inference.
Or that both of them (to reference a previous Rationality Quotes entry on arguments) are wrong.
"Nothing matters at all. Might as well be nice to people. (Hand out your chuckles while you can.)"
(Mouse over a strip to see its last sentence.)
Also:
"You were my everything. Which, upon reflection, was probably the problem."
"Overreaction: Any reaction to something that doesn't affect me."
"Civilization is the ability to distinguish what you like from what you like watching pornography of. (And anyway, why were you going through my computer?)"
"The Internet made us all into cyborgs with access to a whole world of information to back up whatever stupid thing we believe that day. (The Racist Computer Wore Tennis Shoes)"
"Everyone wants someone they can bring home to mom. I need someone to distract my mom while I raid the medicine cabinet. (Someone who thinks suggested dosages are quaint.)" - that's not a rationality quote, but it's how my boyfriend thinks and operates.
― Carlos Ruiz Zafón, The Angel's Game
We, humans, use a frame of reference constructed from integrated sets of assumptions, expectations and experiences. Everything is perceived on the basis of this framework. The framework becomes self-confirming because, whenever we can, we tend to impose it on experiences and events, creating incidents and relationships that conform to it. And we tend to ignore, misperceive, or deny events that do not fit it. As a consequence, it generally leads us to what we are looking for. This frame of reference is not easily altered or dismantled, because the way we tend to see the world is intimately linked to how we see and define ourselves in relation to the world. Thus, we have a vested interest in maintaining consistency because our own identity is at risk.
--- Brian Authur, The Nature of Technology
From Terry Pratchett´s Unseen Academicals (very minor/not significant spoilers):
If you feel the need to put the quote in rot13 to avoid spoilers, it's probably not worth posting at all (I don't think that this quote spoils anything significant about the plot in any case.)
On Fun Theory; by a great, drunken Master of that conspiracy:
-- Marisa Kirisame, in her Grimoire