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- Do not quote yourself
- Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB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)
Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The trouble-makers. The round heads in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status-quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify, or vilify them. But the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.
--Apple's “Think Different” campaign
-E.T. Jaynes
Vince Lombardi
Puting whenever you think in terms of fights don't do a good job. People come rapid with ferocious comments.
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.)
I see. I think the quoted text is very representative of rational thinking, but since I personally don´t like spoilers/previews very much, I opted for caution and rot13ed it. My thinking was that an unseen quote can be seen later if so wished, but it is harder to forget something already read. But perhaps for most people the discordance of seeing a lone rot13ed text has a negative utility that is lower than that of reading a very minor spoiler/preview? If that is so, I will unrot13 it.
In any case, thank you for your input. For now, I will edit the parent so that it is clear that the severity of the spoiler is very low.
Yet more of St. George:
Notes on the Way
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.
What exactly was the war on heresy?
Peasant revolts based on oppressive governance costs didn't happen?
If we don't count the denial of a glimpse of hope to "whole classes and races" (and genders) of people, then most of what I personally don't approve of in the time period drops out. But even if that isn't included in the ledger, it wasn't all that great for the vast majority of white Christian men.
You mean then, or now?
Remember what happened to Larry Summers at Harvard when he merely asked the question?
Does the phrase "Denier" cause any mental associations that weren't there in the late 90s?
At least Copernicus was allowed to recant and live his declining years in (relative) peace.
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.
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.
Why? My mental model of M.M., admittedly based on the very few things of his that I've read, has him not disagreeing with the above section significantly.
He's very firmly against all past and future attempts to bring forth the aforementioned Kingdom of Heaven (except, needless to say, his own - which has the elimination of hypocrisy as one of its points). He sneers - I have no other word - at patriotic feeling, and wages a one-man crusade against ideological/religious feeling. He might dislike hatred, but he certainly believes that greed and self-interest are "enough" - are the most useful, safe motives one could have. Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Orwell wasn't exactly a supporter of patriotism or religion either. In fact, in paragraphs you quoted you can see Orwell sneering at religion even as he admits that it can serve a useful purpose. My understanding of Moldbug's position on religion is that its pretty similar, i.e., he recognizes the important role religion played in Western Civilization including the development of science even if he doesn't like what it's currently evolved into.
No offence, but I think you need to read a dozen of his post-1939 essays before we even talk about that. He was a fervent British patriot, occasionally waxing nostalgic about the better points of the old-time Empire - even as he was talking about the necessity of a socialist state! - and a devout Anglican for his entire life (which was somewhat obscured by his contempt for bourgeois priesthood).
You're simply going off the one-dimensional recycled image of Orwell: the cardboard democratic socialist whose every opinion was clear, liberal and ethically spotless. The truth is far more complicated; I'd certainly say he was more of a totalitarian than the hypocritical leftist intellectuals he was bashing! (I hardly think less of him due to that, mind.)
-Jonathan Baron
"A little simplification would be the first step toward rational living, I think." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
http://www.inspiration-oasis.com/eleanor-roosevelt-quotes.html
E.T. Jaynes on the Mind Projection Fallacy and quantum mechanics:
"[T]he mysteries of the uncertainty principle were explained to us thus: The momentum of the particle is unknown; therefore it has a high kinetic energy." A standard of logic that would be considered a psychiatric disorder in other fields, is the accepted norm in quantum theory. But this is really a form of arrogance, as if one were claiming to control Nature by psychokinesis."
Explanation for the down votes please?
Very good question. People may disagree with the quote, or may think that out of context it misrepresents Jaynes. In the most charitable interpretation that occurs to me, they think you overestimate the clarity and usefulness of the quote.
The discovery of truth is prevented most effectively, not by false appearances which mislead into error, nor directly by weakness of reasoning powers, but by pre-conceived opinion, by prejudice, which as a pseudo a priori stands in the path of truth and is then like a contrary wind driving a ship away from land, so that sail and rudder labour in vain.
- Martin Luther King Jr.
― 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
"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is 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.
-- Warren Ellis, Transmetropolitan
-- 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.
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.
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.]
--Chapter One, "The Coin", by Muphrid; see also "Joy in the Merely Real"
Taboo dry -- does that mean “containing little water” or “containing little liquid water”?
And glass is a slowly flowing liquid.
No it isn't.. But from that same 'misconceptions' list I discovered that meteorites aren't hot when they hit the earth - they are more likely to be below freezing. "Melf" had been deceiving me all this time.
Huh? That doesn't seem strange at all. It's the first place I would have guessed - based on it being really extreme, really big and really cold.
I guess I can't get so much of "truth is strange, update!" kick out of this one as intended...
On Fun Theory; by a great, drunken Master of that conspiracy:
-- Marisa Kirisame, in her Grimoire
- Laura van Dernoot Lipsky
-- Alcatraz Smedry in Alcatraz versus the Evil Librarians, by Brandon Sanderson.
Evelyn Baring, Earl of Cromer, Modern Egypt
-- illdoc1 on YouTube
— 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!
It's that way in the Australian original, although not in Crowley's or Wilson's version.
Paul Graham “What You’ll Wish You’d Known” http://paulgraham.com/hs.html
Reversed stupidity is not intelligence!
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.
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.
What is the intended extension of "political stupidity" in this quote? (Intended by you in quoting it; I can hardly demand that you engage in telepathy.)
-- Paul Graham
(Arguably a decent philosophy of life, if a bit harshly expressed for my taste.)
Kane: Quit griping!
Lambert: I like griping.
(from Alien)
Might be a better phrasing? It also accounts for doing good things even if you can't solve the current problem.
-Hilary Putnam
Putnam of all people really should have known better than to use the word 'miracle'.
-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.
"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
Of course, if you can compute the way an Argus would see an obscured object, or a Briareus would approach a dexterity-testing-task, that might be useful in evaluating our approaches to similar problems.
This struck me as an odd position for a Christian apologist. I know that if I didn't see us all as idiots, I might think we all deserved to die -- oh, wait.
Related: this slide
http://xkcd.com/1050/
Not many people are required to take cooking classes, hardly any goes through 20 years after graduating without ever needing to cook, and there are lots people “proud” of not learning foreign languages. And playing music is higher-status than doing maths.
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.
-- 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.
(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.
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.
Most scientists, skeptics, theists, and new agers of various stripes share a common (and not necessarily wrong) belief in the truth. They differ primarily in how they believe one gets to the truth, and under what conditions, if ever, one should change one's mind about the truth.
Robert Anton Wilson was unusual in that he really tried to believe multiple and contradictory claimed truths, rather than just one. For instance, on Monday, Wednesday and Friday he might believe astrology worked. Then on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday he'd believe astrology was bullshit. On Sunday he'd try to believe both at the same time. This wasn't indecision but rather a deliberate effort to change his mind, and see what happened. That is, he was brain hacking by adjusting his belief system. He was not walled in by a need to maintain a consistent belief system. He deliberately believed contradictory things.
Call a believer someone who believes proposition A. Call a nonbeliever someone who believes proposition NOT A. Call an a-gnostic someone who doesn't assign a much higher probability to one of A and NOT A. Wilson would be a multi-gnostic: that is, someone who believes A and believes NOT A, someone who is both a believer and a non-believer. This is how he came across as a skeptic among mystics and a mystic among skeptics. He was both, and several other things besides.
-Kurt Vonnegut
I'm pretty sure Plato was quoting Socrates.
Then you can commit suicide without worries.
-Douglas Hofstadter (posted with gwern's "permission")
I merely said
If anyone was wondering. (So far my prediction is right...)
I'm downvoting the whole karma-discussion, because it's effectively karma-wanking spam that abuses the karma-system, and distorts what actual value karma has in estimating the value of any given quote.
Keep this crap to predictionbook.
Walter Lewin
In general, science is only boring when you don't understand it.
Even people who love science often regard areas other than their field of expertise as dull. In reality, I suspect that if they took the time to better understand those "dull" specialties they'd find them fascinating as well.
-- Lion Kimbro, "The Anarchist's Principle"
--Steve Sailer, commenting on cultural changes and words
Source.
Interesting. But those words are still used to promote. Impossible for me to say whether they are used that way less now than before... I guess I will take Sailer's word for it?
"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.
Is this a quotation or paraphrase of some famous quote? Googling "discordianism" "law of fives" "two possibilities" only comes up with a handful of hits, all unrelated except for this lesswrong.com page itself.
-Carl Winfeld
"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.
xkcd
Because instead of pissing them off you get to terrify them?
Nassim Taleb
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
"He says what we're all thinking!"
---GlaDOS, Portal 2, in response to above quote
I like lemons...
When life gives you lemons, lemon canon.
Calvin, Calvin and Hobbes
— Steven Kaas
Huh, I scrolled past this and read Nisan's post first, by the time I got any further this was already running through my head.
Not so sure that this is a good rationalist quote though.
Huh, I scrolled past this and read Nisan's post first, by the time I got any further this was already running through my head.
Not so sure that this is a good rationalist quote though.
Huh, I scrolled past this and read Nisan's post first, by the time I got any further this was already running through my head.
Not so sure that this is a good rationalist quote though.
"If God gives you lemons, you find a new God."
-- Powerthirst 2: Re-Domination
If you liked Powerthirst, there's a similar thing called "SHOWER PRODUCTS FOR MEN" on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUjh4DE8FZA
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.
More accurately, we should test more specific things, then become more specific. First make the test, then update the beliefs.
-- 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.
Vimes has the right of it here, I think. They are just people, they are just doing what people do. And even if what people do isn't always as good as it could be, it is far from being as bad as it could be. Mankind is inherently good at a level greater than can be explained by chance alone, p<.05.
Simply writing "p<.05" after a statement doesn't count as evidence for it.
Edit: "Goodness" can be explained from evolutionary game theory: Generous Tit-for-Tat behavior is an excellent survival strategy and often leads to productive (or at least not mutually destructive) cooperation with other individuals practicing Generous Tit-for-Tat. Calling this "goodness" or "evilness" (altruism vs selfishness) is a meaningless value judgment when both describe the same behavior. Really it's neither- people aren't good for the sake of being good, or bad for the sake of being bad but behaving a certain way because it's a good strategy for survival.
"p<.05" is a shorthand way of saying "the evidence we have is substantially unlikely to be the random result of unbiased processes". It wasn't intended to be taken literally, unless you think I've done randomized controlled trials on the goodness of mankind.
Yes, surely the inherent goodness comes from evolutionary game theory, it's hard to see where else it would have come from. But the fact that evolutionary game theory suggests that people should have evolved to be good should be a point in favor of the proposition that mankind is inherently good, not a point against it.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, doing an RCT on the goodness of mankind might help illuminate some points. You could put a researcher in a room and have him "accidentally" drop some papers, and see if it's people or placebo mannequins who are more likely to help him pick them up.
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.
Quintilian
The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder.
Wikiquotes: Huston Smith Wikipedia: Ralph Washinton Sockman
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.
The island of knowledge is composed of atoms? The shoreline of wonder is not a fractal?
Perhaps it's composed of atomic memes ?
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.
-Tim Ferriss, The 4-Hour Workweek
~Paul Graham
Evelyn Baring, Earl of Cromer, Modern Egypt
-David Wong, 5 Ways to Spot a B.S. Political Story in Under 10 Seconds
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.
-- Scott Aaronson
Such as set theory?
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
-Henry G. Felsen
Why that citation?
Edit: Question answered below.
~ Zach Weiner, SMBC #2559
Evelyn Baring, Earl of Cromer, Modern Egypt
--Mencius Moldbug, on belief as attire and conspicuous wrongness.
Source.
More quotes by Mencius Moldbug:
They are all from the article A Reservationist Epistemology
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!
I think his point is that you are still entirely unable to even enumerate, let alone process, all the relevant hypotheses, nor does the formula inform you of those, nor does it inform you how to deal with cyclic updates (or even that those are a complicated case), etc.
It's particularly bad when it comes to what rationalists describe as "expected utility calculations". The ideal expected utility is a sum of the differential effect of the actions being compared, over all hypotheses, multiplied with their probabilities... a single component of the sum provides very little or no information about the value of the sum, especially when picked by someone with a financial interest as strong as "if i don't convince those people I can't pay my rent". Then, the actions themselves have an impact on the future decision making, which makes the expected value sum grow and branch out like some crazy googol-headed fractal hydra. Mostly when someone's talking much about Bayes they have some simple and invalid expected value calculation that they want you to perform and act upon, so that you'll be worse off in the end and they'll be better off in the end.
From the little Moldbug I've been able to slog through, my main impression of him is "reader-hostile". If he were polite maybe he would get to the effing point already.
Also relevant.
― Brandon Mull, Fablehaven
Others rarely collect enough data when making mistakes. Sometimes you need to go make the mistake yourself.
Norbert Wiener
--Chinese Tale
They had too much time to talk, if one of them was that fast. Can't help, but this technicality bothers me.
It was not said how the old man was travelling, and I doubt the horse was at a literal run. A carriage can go as fast as about 30 miles an hour on a modern road, but even in those conditions you should expect to break your carriage. On ancient roads, depending on condition, the speed limit for going "very fast" in a carriage could easily have been as low as about 10 miles per hour. If the old man was riding on an animal, or walking very fast, then he could have kept up for some time.
We at least know that the carriage wasn't moving at its top speed because at the end of the story the horse sped up.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/clive-palmer-plans-to-build-titanic-ii-20120430-1xtrc.html
-Ralph Waldo Emerson, probably not apocryphal (at first, this comment said "possibly apocryphal since I can't find it anywhere except collections of quotes")
It's in WikiQuotes.
Which is a collection of quotes!
One that anyone can edit!(!)
But it gives a source!
One that anyone can check!
THE SOURCE.
(Just going to note that I wholly disapprove of this line of conversation.)
It is not as though I did not try to find a source, damnit. Though on closer inspection I see it highlights some invisible text, so that counts as good evidence it's real.
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.
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.
-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
If someone didn't value any world-states more than any others, I'm not sure that a Way would actually exist for them, as they could do nothing to increase the expected utility of future world-states. Thus, it doesn't seem to really make sense to speak of such a Way being easy or hard for them.
Am I missing something?
That depends on whether your goal is to travel or to arrive.
Albus Dumbledore
Sometimes I check the original and am surprised by how little I actually diverged from Rowling's Dumbledore.
-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.)
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.
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.