Rationality Quotes July 2012

3 Post author: RobertLumley 04 July 2012 12:29AM

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  • Do not quote yourself
  • Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB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.

 

Comments (466)

Comment author: Eneasz 20 August 2012 06:53:16PM *  0 points [-]

Posted to wrong month, moved.

An excerpt from Wise Man's Fear, by Patrick Rothfuss. Boxing is not safe.

The innkeeper looked up. "I have to admit I don't see the trouble," he said apologetically. "I've seen monsters, Bast. The Cthaeh falls short of that."

"That was the wrong word for me to use, Reshi," Bast admitted. "But I can't think of a better one. If there was a word that meant poisonous and hateful and contagious, I'd use that."

Bast drew a deep breath and leaned forward in his chair. "Reshi, the Cthaeh can see the future. Not in some vague, oracular way. It sees all the future. Clearly. Perfectly. Everything that can possibly come to pass, branching out endlessly from the current moment."

Kvothe raised an eyebrow. "It can, can it?"

"It can," Bast said gravely. "And it is purely, perfectly malicious. This isn't a problem for the most part, as it can't leave the tree. But when someone comes to visit..."

Kvothe's eyes went distant as he nodded to himself. "If it knows the future perfectly," he said slowly, "then it must know exactly how a person will react to anything it says."

Bast nodded. "And it is vicious, Reshi."

Kvothe continued in a musing tone. "That means anyone influenced by the Cthaeh would be like an arrow shot into the future."

"An arrow only hits on person, Reshi." Bast's dark eyes were hollow and hopeless. "Anyone influenced by the Cthaeh is like a plague ship sailing for a harbor." Bast pointed at the half-filled sheet Chronicler held in his lap. "If the Sithe knew that existed, they would spare no effort to destroy it. They would kill us for having heard what the Cthaeh said."

"Because anything carrying the Cthaeh's influence away from the tree..." Kvothe said, looking down at his hands. He sat silently for a long moment, nodding thoughtfully. "So a young man seeking his fortune goes to the Cthaeh and takes away a flower. The daughter of the king is deathly ill, and he takes the flower to heal her. They fall in love despite the fact that she's betrothed to the neighboring prince..."

Bast stared at Kvothe, watching blankly as he spoke.

"They attempt a daring moonlight escape," Kvothe continued. "But he falls from the rooftops and they're caught. The princess is married against her will and stabs the neighboring prince on their wedding night. The prince dies. Civil war. Fields burned and salted. Famine. Plague..."

"That's the story of the Fastingsway War," Bast said faintly.

Comment author: lukeprog 31 July 2012 02:15:28PM *  3 points [-]

We are accustomed to thinking of evolution in a biological context, but modern evolutionary theory views evolution as something much more general. Evolution is an algorithm; it is an all-purpose formula for innovation, a formula that, through its special brand of trial and error, creates new designs and solves difficult problems. Evolution can perform its tricks not just in the "substrate" of DNA, but in any system that has the right information processing and information-storage characteristics. In short, evolution s simple recipe of "differentiate, select, and amplify" is a type of computer program—a program for creating novelty, knowledge, and growth. Because evolution is a form of information processing, it can do its order-creating work in realms ranging from computer software to the mind, to human culture, and to the economy.

Eric Beinhocker, The Origin of Wealth

Comment author: DaFranker 31 July 2012 02:57:12PM 0 points [-]

This piques my curiosity on a certain point of interest: Has the argument "It's just an algorithm" ever been used as a counter to the claim that Evolution as a biological phenomenon should not be conflated with "Technological Evolution", "Corporate Evolution", "Personal Evolution", etc.?

More importantly, would there be an efficient way of defusing this potentially mind-killer-route argument without misleading the other party into thinking their assumption is correct when the inferential distance is too large for a technical explanation of the misuse of categories and labels (AKA They're not even aware of Lesswrong's existence and are not trained in scientific thought or rationality)?

Comment author: TimS 31 July 2012 03:31:07PM -1 points [-]

Can you be more clear about what types of conflation you find problematic?

If I do a better job representing my clients, then when new lawyer hiring decisions are made, I expect to receive additional clients. Do you feel it is unclear to call that natural selection, or evolution?

I agree that using "evolution" as a synonym for change (i.e. Personal Evolution vs. Personal Self-Improvement) is problematic, but I'm not sure that the quote under discussion helps that issue.

Comment author: DaFranker 31 July 2012 04:47:05PM *  2 points [-]

I can certainly try to!

Well, I do find problematic any types of conflation that lead to incorrect assumptions and unreasonable predictions, but that's a little unclear too. In general day-to-day interactions, the most common problematic is where someone with whom I'm discussing will know of "darwinian evolution" and, of course, the phrase "Survival of the fittest!", but will have no technical understanding of the actual algorithm.

Thus, what they see is that when a species lives where there are a lot of large, tough, and highly nutricious hard-shelled nuts, that species will gradually get longer beaks or stronger claws to pierce through the shell and get at the tasty bits. They don't see how all kinds of other possible variations also get tried, and get rejected because they die and the ones more adapted keep reproducing. Thus, in their model, it's as if the entire membership of the species suddenly started growing longer beaks. The approximate generalization is fairly accurate on evolutionary timescales, but misrepresents the cause of the change, which is where things start going wrong.

They then translate it to being the same in, say, better lawyers, to steal your example. The misunderstanding often mixes with hindsight bias, in my experience, to produce beliefs that lawyers who fail to survive in a fictive environment where clients like cookie-bribes are incompetent by property of being unable to evolve and adapt. Those lawyers were clearly incompetent. It's simple Evolution theory that you should be more adapted and provide cookie-bribes to your clients if the environment is like that. That was obvious.

Beyond this, however, I now notice that something is wrong because I'm unable to clarify the exact issue further, which suggests that I may mentally be myself wrongly unifying or inferencing several things in my mental model and in my memory of related events. Perhaps if I re-read (once I find it) the article by Eliezer that talked about something similar, I might clarify my thoughts. I've had no luck finding it so far, however.

EDIT: With a bit of self-reviewing, I've noticed that that last paragraph above somewhat feels like an applause light. It was an obvious statement where the opposite is clearly not what we want here. I'm also gradually updating towards the idea that the initial spark to my question was in fact either a cached idea or an error in belief propagation; I felt like I knew that there were cases where "such conflations" were problematic, and so I skipped over that part to go directly to asking the question. I knew that I knew, so I didn't bother to verify the low-level knowledge, but the low-level knowledge may not have been there and I might have failed to update the meta-knowledge. I shall allocate more brainwork on this after I've eaten and made myself more apt to think clearly.

Comment author: gwern 30 July 2012 02:58:42PM *  5 points [-]

...’Twas a nest full of young birds on the ground
The cutter-bar had just gone champing over
(Miraculously without tasting flesh)
And left defenseless to the heat and light.
...The way the nest-full every time we stirred
Stood up to us as to a mother-bird
Whose coming home has been too long deferred,
Made me ask would the mother-bird return
And care for them in such a change of scene
And might our meddling make her more afraid?
That was a thing we could not wait to learn.
We saw the risk we took in doing good,
But dared not spare to do the best we could
Though harm should come of it; so built the screen
You had begun, and gave them back their shade.
All this to prove we cared. Why is there then
No more to tell? We turned to other things.
I haven’t any memory—have you?—
Of ever coming to the place again
To see if the birds lived the first night through,
And so at last to learn to use their wings.

--"The Exposed Nest", Robert Frost; I googled some interpretation & discussions of it after reading, and was surprised to see I seem to be the only person to take it as a discussion of ethics.

Comment author: matabele 29 July 2012 01:38:46PM *  2 points [-]

Not everything that is faced can be changed. But nothing can be changed until it is faced.

– James Baldwin

The obscure language was likely due to the political context of the original; try substituting 'identified' for 'faced'.

Comment author: tut 30 July 2012 09:44:18AM -1 points [-]

try substituting 'identified' for 'faced'.

Or acknowledged, or accepted. I don't see facing an issue as obscure language, but this is a good aphorism. Upvoted.

Comment author: matabele 27 July 2012 07:47:47PM *  1 point [-]

Another Goethe quote, whilst on that tack; seems appropriate for disciples of GS.

Love is an ideal thing, marriage a real thing; a confusion of the real with the ideal never goes unpunished.

-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Comment author: DaFranker 27 July 2012 07:58:48PM 1 point [-]

There's one (okay, more like 1.6) major problem with that quote, everything else being otherwise good:

The implicitly absolute categorization of "love" as "ideal", and the likewise-implicit (sneaky?) connotation that love is not as real as it is ideal or marriage as ideal as it is real.

Love is a very real thing. There are very real, natural, empirically-observable and testable things happening for whatever someone identifies as "love". However, further discussion is problematic, as "love" has become such a wide-reaching symbol that it becomes almost essential to specify just what interpretation, definition or sub-element of "love" we're talking about in most contexts if ambiguity is to be avoided.

Comment author: gwern 27 July 2012 08:36:01PM 0 points [-]

Goethe is writing in a time influenced by German Romanticism (for which he was partly guilty); it would not be amiss if one were to capitalize love there as 'Love' - an abstraction, not some empirical neural correlates.

Comment author: DaFranker 27 July 2012 09:31:04PM -1 points [-]

I'm not quite sure what this abstraction would even correspond to. In fact, when I ask myself what abstract meaning 'Love' could possibly have, I find myself confused. It seems there might be some 'Love' somewhere that feels like it is the ideal, abstract 'Love', but no matter where I search I cannot find it on my map.

I'd like it if you could help me map this "abstract ideal" in my conceptspace map, if that's possible.

Comment author: matabele 27 July 2012 10:16:22PM *  1 point [-]

When mapping labels (symbols) to their underlying concepts, look for the distinction, not the concept. Distinctions divide a particular perspective of the map; each side of the distinction being marked with a label. In early Greek philosophy the opposites were: love and strife (see empedocles.)

(An abstraction corresponds to a class of distinctions, where each particular distinction of the class, corresponds to another abstraction.)

Comment author: DaFranker 27 July 2012 10:23:27PM *  0 points [-]

Oh! That makes a lot more sense. It doesn't seem like the most reliable technique, but this particular term is now a lot clearer. Thanks!

Of course, this seems to me like 'Love' is then merely a general "Interface Method", to be implemented depending on the Class in whatever manner, in context, will go against strife and/or promote well-being of cared-for others.

Which is indeed not something real, but a simple part of a larger utility function, in a sense.

Comment author: matabele 28 July 2012 07:49:37AM *  0 points [-]

A good resource on distinctions (if you are not yet aware of it), is George Spencer-Brown's Laws of Form. These ideas are being further explored (Bricken, Awbrey), and various resources on boundary logic and differential logic, are now available on the web.

Comment author: gwern 02 August 2012 02:27:21PM 5 points [-]

I'm not really sure Laws of Form is a good resource, and I'm not sure it's good at all. A crazy philosophy acquaintance of mine recommended it, so I read it, and couldn't make very much of it (although I was disturbed that the author apparently thought he had proved the four-color theorem?). Searching, I got the impression that one could say of the book 'what was good in it was not original, and what was original was not good'; later I came across a post by a Haskeller/mathematician I respect implementing it in Haskell which concluded much the same thing:

So, Laws of Form succeeds in defining a boolean style algebra and propositional style calculus. It then shows how to build circuits using logic gates. And that, as far as I can see, is the complete content of the book. It's fun, it works, but it's not very profound and I don't think that even in its day it could have been terribly original. (Who first proved NAND and NOT gates are universal? Sheffer? Peirce?) In my view this makes GSB's mathematics not of the crackpot variety, despite his talk of imaginary logical values....So my final opinion, for all of the two cents that it's worth, is that GSB is a little on the crackpot side, but that his mathematics in Laws of Form is sound, fun, cute, but, despite the trappings, not terribly profound.

Comment author: gwern 27 July 2012 09:34:40PM 0 points [-]

It's not worth trying to understand beyond Goethe having fun at some idealists' expense. I took a course on Romanticism, and came out with little better understanding than you have now.

Comment author: matabele 27 July 2012 05:28:19PM 3 points [-]

Men show their characters in nothing more clearly than in what they think laughable.

-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

(re-posted on request.)

Comment author: matabele 27 July 2012 10:55:17AM 0 points [-]

If you wish to advance into the infinite, explore the finite in all directions.

-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Comment author: wedrifid 27 July 2012 02:35:11PM *  5 points [-]

If you wish to advance into the infinite, explore the finite in all directions.

That sounds incredibly deep. (By which I mean it is bullshit.)

Comment author: olalonde 28 July 2012 06:20:08AM 5 points [-]

For some reason, this thread reminds me of this Simpsons quote:

"The following tale of alien encounters is true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining lies, and in the end, isn't that the real truth?"

Comment author: TheOtherDave 27 July 2012 05:42:51PM 4 points [-]

Upvoted for correct usage of a technical term. :-)

Comment author: wedrifid 28 July 2012 06:07:45AM 0 points [-]

Upvoted for correct usage of a technical term.

My favourite technical term out of all the technical terms!

Comment author: matabele 27 July 2012 03:21:38PM *  -1 points [-]

Not necessarily deep; a couple of concrete interpretations:

'Do not let what you can not do, interfere with what you can do;' and 'If you wish to discover the unknown, begin by exploring what is known.'

There is often much hidden wisdom in interpretation of aphorisms, which perhaps explains my preference for the poetic turn of phrase.

Comment author: wedrifid 27 July 2012 03:38:22PM 5 points [-]

There is often much hidden wisdom

No, there are intentionally vague deep sounding comments to which wisdom can be associated. You've just given multiple meanings to the same words. Those other meanings may be useful but the words themselves are nonsense.

Comment author: matabele 27 July 2012 04:11:02PM -1 points [-]

... intentionally vague deep sounding ... (symbols) ... to which wisdom can be associated. You've just given multiple meanings to the same ... (symbols) ... Those other meanings may be useful but the ... (symbols) ... themselves are nonsense.

That pretty much describes any proposition. If you wish, substitute the word 'noise' for the word 'symbol, then the paragraph describes an utterance.

There is a good resource on semiotics here.

Comment author: wedrifid 27 July 2012 04:15:36PM 1 point [-]

That pretty much describes any proposition.

No it doesn't. Not all propositions are intentionally vague and deep sounding.

If you wish, substitute the word 'noise' for the word 'symbol

Were I inclined to substitute in 'noise' it would be as a contrast to 'signal'.

Comment author: matabele 27 July 2012 04:46:38PM 1 point [-]

Men show their characters in nothing more clearly than in what they think laughable.

-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Comment author: wedrifid 27 July 2012 04:48:58PM *  1 point [-]

This is an excellent quote and belongs at the top level.

(I downvoted it here because the point you are trying to make by replying with it is approximately backwards. An intended insult which would make more sense as a compliment.)

Comment author: matabele 27 July 2012 05:26:03PM *  -2 points [-]

And there you have it: symbols (or strings of symbols) have different sense in different contexts.

One of the contexts in which I found this aphorism insightful, was in certain interpretations of quantum physics.

Comment author: matabele 29 July 2012 08:24:13AM *  -2 points [-]

Comment author: Incorrect 27 July 2012 02:53:34PM 2 points [-]

I think it is intended to mean "If you want to accomplish impractical things, work on practical subtasks."

I don't see what's wrong with that.

Comment author: wedrifid 27 July 2012 03:14:22PM 4 points [-]

I think it is intended to mean "If you want to accomplish impractical things, work on practical subtasks."

That's an excellent quote. Let's find an impressive external source who says that and quote them!

Comment author: TheOtherDave 27 July 2012 05:42:02PM 5 points [-]

Or, failing that, pick an impressive external source and ask them to write back to you saying that, so you can subsequently quote it attributed to "Impressive Source (private communication)"

Comment author: wedrifid 27 July 2012 06:31:29PM 2 points [-]

Or, failing that, pick an impressive external source and ask them to write back to you saying that, so you can subsequently quote it attributed to "Impressive Source (private communication)"

Excellent idea. I used to do this on certain assignments at times.

Comment author: DaFranker 27 July 2012 06:22:15PM 0 points [-]

As a variant: Introduce some freeloader code in Watson to have it randomly blurt out quotes from a list of quotations sent to a specific email address each time it appears in public.

This gives you both the Impressive Source criterion and a public statement of the quote.

Comment author: lukeprog 27 July 2012 04:08:50AM 8 points [-]

...there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from ... the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.

Niccolo Machiavelli

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 27 July 2012 07:21:15PM 1 point [-]

This coolness arises partly from ... the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.

As well they should.

Comment author: lukeprog 23 July 2012 07:23:55AM 4 points [-]

Misunderstanding of probability may be the greatest of all impediments to scientific literacy.

Stephen Jay Gould

Comment author: lukeprog 23 July 2012 07:22:41AM 2 points [-]

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

Albert Einstein

(Quoted here but not in any LW quotes thread.)

Comment author: lukeprog 23 July 2012 04:04:54AM 4 points [-]

Hope is the confusion of the desire for a thing with its probability.

Arthur Schopenhauer

Comment author: Fyrius 29 July 2012 05:02:56PM 4 points [-]

If that's how it works, then I suspect paranoia is the same thing, but with fear instead of desire.

Comment author: matabele 21 July 2012 02:58:46PM *  3 points [-]

A perennial favourite: "If you torture the data enough, they will confess."

Often attributed to Ronald Coase, however this version was likely: "If you torture the data long enough, nature will confess" - perhaps implying a confession of truth. Another version, attributed to Paolo Magrassi: "If you torture the data enough, it will confess anything" - perhaps implying a confession of falsehood.

Personally, I find the ambiguous version of greater interest.

Comment author: [deleted] 22 July 2012 08:23:08AM *  1 point [-]
Comment author: matabele 23 July 2012 02:27:38PM *  1 point [-]

Interesting that you should prefer 'they', referring to the plural data; some versions of the aphorism also use this form - in retrospect, I prefer this form.

Torturing data is a common problem in my field (geophysics). With large but sparse datasets, data can be manipulated to mean almost anything. Normal procedure: first make a reasonable model for the given context; then make a measureable prediction based upon your model; then collect an appropriate dataset by 'tuning' your measuring apparatus to the model; then process your data in a standard way. In the case that that your model is not necessarily wrong; then make another measureable prediction based upon your model; collect another dataset by an independent experimental method; then ...

Even when following this procedure, models are often later found to be wildly erroneous; in other words, all of the experimental support for your model was dreamt up.

Comment author: [deleted] 23 July 2012 04:55:45PM 1 point [-]

What I was thinking about when typing that was indeed a model by some geophysicists. They had found some kind of correlation between some function of solar activity and some function of seismic activity, but those functions were so unnatural-looking that I couldn't help thinking they tweaked the crap out of everything before getting a strong-enough result.

Comment author: matabele 24 July 2012 07:55:45PM *  0 points [-]

You were likely referring to some of the recent work of Vincent Courtillot. A video summarizing some of his work here.

The most interesting aspect of this work, is that Courtillot did not start out with any intention of finding correlations with climate; his field is geomagnetism. Only after noticing certain correlations between geomagnetic cycles and sun spot cycles, did suspected correlations with natural climate cycles become evident.

Comment author: [deleted] 13 July 2012 04:48:11PM *  4 points [-]

His books celebrated the joyful wonders of scientific investigation and included such exuberant passages as this one written about the successful prediction of the location of the new planet Uranus: "Praised be this science! Praised be the men who do it! And praised be the human mind, which sees more sharply than does the human eye."

Walter Isaacson, Einstein (quoting Aaron Bernstein's People's Books on Natural Science)

Comment author: chaosmosis 13 July 2012 02:25:32AM 1 point [-]

If you want to learn why you think whatever it is you think, strip away existing context and force it into a new one and see what happens.

The Last Psychiatrist, at http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/11/judge_beats_his_daughter_for_b.html

Comment author: woodside 12 July 2012 07:37:31AM *  8 points [-]

"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week."

General Patton

Obviously not true in all cases, but good advice for folks that have trouble getting things done despite being extremely intelligent (which this community has more than its fair share of).

Comment author: matabele 23 July 2012 02:51:18PM *  0 points [-]

Comment author: Vaniver 23 July 2012 03:15:37PM 2 points [-]

No, I am sorry, this aphorism may only be defended in those instances where poor planning results in a situatiion where insufficient time is available for any planning, and events now dictate action. In which case, what right does the 'good plan' have to be called a plan?

Consider Eisenhower:

In preparing for battle, I have always found that plans are useless but planning is indispensable.

Other humans must be interacted with in real-time. Consider a non-military analogy: a good comeback confidently issued now is better than a perfect comeback issued next week.

It also works for computing. Consider languages which have a REPL to those that don't: for many applications, good code executed now is better than perfect code executed next week. This is often because requirements change over time, and the future cannot be predicted- the customers won't know what module they want next until they've used the current module.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 23 July 2012 03:37:18PM 2 points [-]

A fellow director is fond of saying, as she puts together rehearsal plans for the show she's about to direct, that while 95% of what she ends up doing in rehearsal is pulled out of her ass rather than planned, rehearsal plans are nevertheless an indispensable part of preparing her ass for rehearsals.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 July 2012 12:11:11AM -1 points [-]

Bad luck isn't brought by broken mirrors, but by broken minds.

Dr Frank Mandel from Suspiria by Dario Argento

Comment author: [deleted] 09 July 2012 11:30:38PM *  23 points [-]

Suppose we find a society which lacks our understanding of human physiology, and that speaks a language just like English, except for one curious family of idioms. When they are tired they talk of being beset by fatigues, of having mental fatigues, muscular fatigues, fatigues in the eyes and fatigues of the the spirit. Their sports lore contains such maxims as 'too many fatigues spoils your aim' and 'five fatigues in the legs are worth ten in the arms'. When we encounter them and tell them of our science, they want to know what fatigues are. They have been puzzling over such questions as whether numerically the same fatigue can come and go and return, whether fatigues have a definite location in matter and space and time, whether fatigues are identical with some physical states or processes or events in their bodies, or are made of some sort of stuff. We can see that they are off to a bad start with these questions, but what should we tell them? One thing we can tell them is that there simply are no such things as fatigues - they have a confused ontology. We can expect them to retort: 'You don't think there are fatigues? Run around the block a few times and you'll know better! There are many things your science might teach us, but the non-existence of fatigues isn't one of them!

--Dan Dennett, Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology

Comment author: Alejandro1 18 July 2012 06:18:11AM 1 point [-]

That's one of my favorite Dennett passages. A similarly great anthropological metaphor is his tale of the forest god Feenoman and the "Feenomanologists" who study this religion. I have not been able to find it online, but it is in the essay "Two approaches to mental images", in the same book.

Comment author: Jay_Schweikert 09 July 2012 04:57:27PM 6 points [-]

In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause -- it is seen. The others unfold in succession -- they are not seen: it is well for us, if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference -- the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen, and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favourable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, -- at the risk of a small present evil.

In fact, it is the same in the science of health, arts, and in that of morals. It often happens, that the sweeter the first fruit of a habit is, the more bitter are the consequences. Take, for example, debauchery, idleness, prodigality. When, therefore, a man absorbed in the effect which is seen has not yet learned to discern those which are not seen, he gives way to fatal habits, not only by inclination, but by calculation.

--From the introduction of Frederic Bastiat's "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen".

Comment author: [deleted] 09 July 2012 10:23:40AM 7 points [-]

"Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist." Academician Prokhor Zakharov, Alpha Centauri

Comment author: Danfly 09 July 2012 07:28:33PM -2 points [-]

Wasn't a temporary moratorium called on smac quotes recently? I have to admit this was one of my favourites from it though.

Comment author: [deleted] 09 July 2012 09:04:30PM 2 points [-]

Oops. I didn't see anything about a moratorium.

Comment author: Danfly 18 July 2012 09:31:03AM 2 points [-]

Ah. I see what my mistake was now. It was just a recommendation by AngryParsley. It wasn't anything official. As I'm still something of a newbie here, I figured it was said by someone with a bit more clout.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 08 July 2012 08:45:06PM 17 points [-]

"Buddhism IS different. It's the followers who aren’t."

-- A Dust Over India.

Commentary: Reading this made me realize that many religions genuinely are different from each other. Christianity is genuinely different from Judaism, Islam is genuinely different from Christianity, Hinduism is genuinely different from all three. It's religious people who are the same everywhere; not the same as each other, obviously, but drawn from the same distribution. Is this true of atheistic humanists? Of transhumanists? Could you devise an experiment to test whether it was so, would you bet on the results of that experiment? Will they say the same of LessWrongers, someday? And if so, what's the point?

Now that I think on it, though, there might be a case for scientists being drawn from a different distribution, or computer programmers, or for that matter science fiction fans (are those all the same distributions as each other, I wonder?). It's not really hopeless.

Comment author: brahmaneya 03 August 2012 09:06:24PM 2 points [-]

I don't his comment about Buddhist people being not different is even true. They are, for example, on the average, less violent than Muslims. They're simply not different to the extent he expected them to be.

Comment author: ChristianKl 14 July 2012 11:54:45AM 3 points [-]

I don't think that the claim is really supported by the observations that he made in the article.

In Buddhism lying isn't as bad as it is in Christanity. Using violence is more accepted in Christian culture than in Buddnism. As a result the followers do act differently. They are less likely to use violence against him but more likely to lie to him.

Why do you think that people are the same everywhere? And what do you mean with "the same"?

Comment author: fubarobfusco 15 July 2012 12:17:37AM 2 points [-]

In Buddhism lying isn't as bad as it is in Christanity. Using violence is more accepted in Christian culture than in Buddhism. As a result the followers do act differently.

How much of this difference can actually be attributed to the followers attempting to obey religious precepts, and how much is simply floating in the sea of cultural memes in the parts of the world where Buddhism and Christianity respectively happen to be common? Would you expect practicing Christians in Japan, Korea, China, or India (and who are ethnically Japanese, Korean, etc.) behave more like your model of "Buddhists" or "Christians"?

Comment author: ChristianKl 15 July 2012 01:51:45PM 4 points [-]

How much of this difference can actually be attributed to the followers attempting to obey religious precepts

Religion is more than obeying general precepts. During the time my Catholic grandmother was in school she wanted to read some book. Before reading it she asked her priest to allow her to read it because it was on the Catholic census. Following the religion seriously and not reading anything that's on the census has an effect that goes beyond the general precepts.

A lot of Buddhists are vegetarians. A lot of Buddhists mediate. Those practices have effects.

and how much is simply floating in the sea of cultural memes in the parts of the world where Buddhism and Christianity respectively happen to be common? Religion isn't more than a bunch of cultural memes packed together into a packet.

Your question assumes that people in Japan can be either "Christians" or "Buddhists" but can't be both. Even when the Chrisitans in Malta pray to Allah you can't be Muslim and a Christian at the same time. There no similar problem with being a Zen Buddhist and being Christian at the same time.

Would you expect practicing Christians in Japan, Korea, China, or India (and who are ethnically Japanese, Korean, etc.) behave more like your model of "Buddhists" or "Christians"?

I think that there a correlation but I'm not sure about the extend to which Far East Christians resemble Western Christians. Making a decision to convert to Christianity when you live in China has a lot of apsects that don't exist when someone who lives in a Christian town simply decides to stay Christian.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 16 July 2012 05:29:17AM *  1 point [-]

I'm not sure I understand your response. Let me restate what I was getting at above, in responding to this assertion:

In Buddhism lying isn't as bad as it is in Christianity. Using violence is more accepted in Christian culture than in Buddhism. As a result the followers do act differently. They are less likely to use violence against him but more likely to lie to him.

This claim makes a prediction regarding the rates of lying and violence among "followers" of Buddhism and Christianity. But what counts as a data point for or against this claim depends on what could be meant by "the followers" of these religions. Two possible interpretations:

  1. "People who explicitly consider themselves to be Buddhists or Christians, and who attempt to live according to what they think the precepts of Buddhism or Christianity are";
  2. "People who come from those cultures which we call 'Buddhist' or 'Christian' respectively, regardless of whether those individuals consider themselves observant or religious at all."

For instance, I consider myself an atheist, but I was raised in a Christian family and live in a society where Christianity is the predominant religious influence. I have read the Gospels (and most of the rest of the Bible); by contrast I have not read the Qur'an, the Tripitaka, the Vedas, or the Talmud. I don't pray, attend church, or listen to the teachings of priests or pastors.

By interpretation 1, I am not a Christian; and whether I happen to lie or do violence would not count for or against the claim above. (It would also not count regarding Buddhism; although I've done Zen meditation more recently than I've done Christian worship ...) By interpretation 2, my cultural background counts me as a Christian; and my tendencies to lie or do violence would count for or against the claim above.

So, I'm asking: What would count as evidence for or against the claim regarding the rate of lying and violence among Christians and Buddhists?

Comment author: ChristianKl 17 July 2012 05:10:26PM *  0 points [-]

I don't think you understand what Buddhism happen to be. If I go into something rumored to be a Buddhist monastry and ask the inhibatans whether they attempt to live according to the precepts of Buddhism there a fairly good chance that the answer is no.

Attempting stuff means having attachment to it. Buddhism is about moving beyond such attachments.

What's my empiric claim?

log(Time spent in Buddhist rituals + X /Time spent in Christian rituals +X) correlates with log(Rate of lying Y / Rate of being violent + Y)

The formula is only supposed to give a general idea. There probably a better way to express the idea.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 10 July 2012 04:46:08PM *  3 points [-]

It's religious people who are the same everywhere

That's evidence that the religion does not change people too much.

Which might be a good thing. Religious cults do change people. An average Scientologist does not behave the same way as an average Christian. You could measure the influence of the religion by measuring how the distribution of personalities changes.

On the other hand, let's not reverse stupidity here. Changing personality is generally a bad thing, but that is not necessary, just very probable.

Comment author: wedrifid 10 July 2012 07:09:26PM 2 points [-]

That's evidence that the religion does not change people too much.

It's also evidence that religion may change people in the same way regardless of details.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 09 July 2012 02:51:22AM 2 points [-]

Is this true of atheistic humanists? Of transhumanists? Could you devise an experiment to test whether it was so, would you bet on the results of that experiment? Will they say the same of LessWrongers, someday? And if so, what's the point?

Now that I think on it, though, there might be a case for scientists being drawn from a different distribution, or computer programmers, or for that matter science fiction fans (are those all the same distributions as each other, I wonder?).

If LW-rationality goes mainstream, it's followers will then be drawn from the same distribution.

Comment author: faul_sname 03 August 2012 05:56:33PM 0 points [-]

If LW-rationality goes mainstream, it's followers will then be drawn from the same distribution.

I find it unlikely that we'll have to opportunity to observe this.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 03 August 2012 07:04:29PM 1 point [-]

I think it's plausible that LW-rationality, or rather a third hand version of it, will go mainstream.

Comment author: kajro 08 July 2012 11:25:33PM 1 point [-]

<pseudo-math> You could define equivalence relations on the set of religious people (RP) and the set of atheistic humanists (AH). In most cases, the people in the sets only interact with (or at least influenced by) other members of the same or similar sets. Turn these interactions into operations on members of the set (a,b in RP, a*b = "a makes b feel awkward/scared/unhappy around a" or maybe something based on social relationships between members). These operations would create new "people" whose characteristics are similar to that of the person who has been molded by the defined social interaction(s).

Starting from a certain subset of RP, these operations could possibly generate the entire set of members (i.e a*b = c in RP, where c has the equivalent disposition as someone who has interacted with b under some applicable equivalence relation). Do the same for AH (using the same equivalence relation), and compare the structures. Under different types of interactions between members, this could reveal some interesting group-theoretical properties. Maybe there is a generating set for RP and not for AH if we keep the equivalence relations from getting too specific. </pseudo-math>

I guess what I'm getting at is that the structural elements of a certain set of people could tell us something about the distribution that the set was pulled from, or even invalidate the need to look at the distribution at all. Maybe the structure is even more important; these sets could pull from the same distribution, but the ideologies that formed these sets could result in drastically different results from operations (social interactions or relationships) between members of the set. Or we could see if only the generating members of the set were pulled from the same distribution, but the social interactions between them created a set member not from the original distribution, resulting in the set having to pull from that distribution also.

Anyway, this is probably not coherent or useful at all, but if nothing else it did lead me to the work of Harrison White on mathematical sociology:

A good summary of White's sociological contributions is provided by his former student and collaborator, Ronald Breiger:

... ... (2) models based on equivalences of actors across networks of multiple types of social relation; (3) theorization of social mobility in systems of organizations; (4) a structural theory of social action that emphasizes control, agency, narrative, and identity ...

This was particularly interesting:

For instance, we are told almost daily how the average European or American feels about a topic. It allows social scientists and pundits to make inferences about cause and say “people are angry at the current administration because the economy is doing poorly.” This kind of generalization certainly makes sense, but it does not tell us anything about an individual. This leads to the idea of an idealized individual, something that is the bedrock of modern economics.[6] Most modern economic theories look at social formations, like organizations, as products of individuals all acting in their own best interest.[7]

Comment author: Nominull 08 July 2012 08:01:12PM *  17 points [-]

I never felt I was studying the stupidity of mankind in the third person. I always felt I was studying my own mistakes.

-Daniel Kahneman, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 07 July 2012 10:05:25AM *  9 points [-]

It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

-Chinese proverb

Comment author: Fyrius 07 July 2012 09:07:00AM *  1 point [-]

Minor spoiler alert. (I think you know the drill.)

Nsgre Oebaa jvaf n qhry:

Ynql Neela: "Lbh qba'g svtug jvgu ubabe!"

Oebaa: "Ab."

Oebaa fzvyrf naq cbvagf gb gur zna ur whfg qrsrngrq.

"Ur qvq."

Game of Thrones (TV series), episode S01E06

(Rational agents should WIN.)

Comment author: MinibearRex 13 July 2012 12:33:48AM 6 points [-]

I like the quote, though really there's no particular reason to put it in rot13.

Minor point: The character's name is spelled Oebaa

Comment author: Fyrius 13 July 2012 01:34:36PM *  2 points [-]

[Hiding a spoiler in the alt tag of a fake link]

...huh. Well wow. I'm going to remember that trick, that's clever. I had no idea you could do that here.

Also, noted, and fixed.

Comment author: Jay_Schweikert 09 July 2012 04:38:51PM 0 points [-]

Upvoted. It's maybe not obvious from the quote alone, but in context, "honor" doesn't mean abstaining from deceit or manipulation -- it means following the largely impractical "rules" of dueling, when the bottom line is just who kills the other man.

Comment author: Fyrius 08 July 2012 02:26:53PM 1 point [-]

If those four people who downvoted this would enlighten me as to why this is a bad quote, that would be much appreciated.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 13 July 2012 06:08:33AM 0 points [-]

Would your opinion of the quote change if "fighting dishonorably" were replaced by "violating the Geneva convention"?

Comment author: Fyrius 13 July 2012 02:04:31PM 1 point [-]

Perhaps. I'd say that should depend on the price for failure and how that compares to the violation. But point taken.

Comment author: Grognor 12 July 2012 04:22:48AM *  6 points [-]

I have a general policy of downvoting anything in rot13. No, I'm not going to work to read your comment!

Instead, put your spoiler text in the hover text of a fake url, like this

Syntax:

[like this](http://notareal.url/ "See? See how much better this is?")
Comment author: Fyrius 13 July 2012 01:59:37PM *  0 points [-]

Ah. I just picked up that technique from MinibearRex up there. I see you said it first, so kudos to you, then. It's a useful trick. I'll remember it.

...incidentally, if it's too much work to click the link, copy-paste the text and click the button, then you might save yourself even more time and effort by just scrolling on without bothering to click the thumbs-down button either. There are friendlier ways to express disapproval, too. But thanks for the advice, I'll try to be less of a bother next time.

Comment author: MinibearRex 13 July 2012 09:25:04PM *  1 point [-]

This is kind of funny. I learned this trick from Grognor's comment when I saw it in the recent comments section. And then I decided to try it out when I noticed the misspelling, not realizing it was on the same post.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 09 July 2012 02:47:24AM 1 point [-]

To the extent honor encodes valid ethical injunctions, ignoring it will cause you to loose in the long run.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 09 July 2012 03:32:24PM 2 points [-]

Exactly-- compare Protected from Myself to "rationalists should win!".

Comment author: tut 08 July 2012 06:33:04PM 4 points [-]

First, it is an appeal to consequences against honor. Worse, it is an appeal to fictional consequences.

Second, honor is not the opposite of rationality. Just making an argument against honor would not automatically be a rationality quote even if it was a good argument.

Third it was encrypted which made me waste more than three times the amount of time reading it that I would have if it was in plain text. When it turned out to be bad this made the disappointment much worse.

Comment author: Fyrius 08 July 2012 07:36:01PM 0 points [-]

P.S.: Regarding your third point, is there a less bothersome way to handle spoilers? I've only seen rot13 being used for that purpose here. I'd gladly make it less cumbersome to read if I could do so without risking diminishing the fun of other people who watch or intend to watch this series.

(Or maybe the annoyance caused by the encryption is worse than the risk of spoiling just one scene in case there's anyone reading this who watches the series and is a season and a half behind... I dunno. Neither course of action should be a big deal.)

Comment author: Fyrius 08 July 2012 07:19:28PM *  4 points [-]

Jeez, you guys. You miss the point.

But at any rate, WIN. Don't lose reasonably, WIN.

-

If you fail to achieve a correct answer, it is futile to protest that you acted with propriety.

-

(...) what good does a sense of violated entitlement do? At all? Ever? What good does it do to tell ourselves that we did everything right and deserved better, and that someone or something else is to blame?

-- Eliezer Yudkowsky

The point isn't that honour is bad, the point is (much more generally) that rational agents shouldn't follow the Rules and lose anyway, they should WIN. Whether the Rules are the rules of honour, of mainstream science or of traditional rationalism, or whatever, if they don't get you to win, find a way that does. And it's futile to complain about unfairness after you lost, or the guy you were rooting for did.

The only part that appeals to fictional consequences is the additional implication that oftentimes, an ounce of down-to-earth pragmatism beats any amount of lofty ideals if you need to actually achieve concrete goals.

I thought adding that "rational agents should win" reference would make the intended idea clear enough. But I'll take my own advice and just make a mental note to be clearer next time.

Comment author: Mass_Driver 13 July 2012 02:47:44AM *  2 points [-]

I dunno, I think all of that is overstated. I mean, sure, perfectly rational agents will always win, where "win" is defined as "achieving the best possible outcome under the circumstances."

But aspiring rationalists will sometimes lose, and therefore be forced to choose the lesser of two evils, and, in making that choice, may very rationally decide that the pain of not achieving your (stated, proactive) goal is easier to bear than the pain of transgressing your (implicit, background) code of morality.

And if by "win" you mean not "achieve the best possible outcome under the circumstances," but "achieve your stated, proactive goal," then no, rationalists won't and shouldn't always win. Sometimes rationalists will correctly note that the best possible outcome under the circumstances is to suffer a negative consequence in order to uphold an ideal. Sometimes your competitors are significantly more talented and better-equipped than you, and only a little less rational than you, such that you can't outwit your way to an honorable upset victory. If you value winning more than honor, fine, and if you value honor more than winning, fine, but don't prod yourself to cheat simply because you have some misguided sense that rationalists never lose.

EDIT: Anyone care to comment on the downvotes?

Comment author: Never_Seen_Belgrade 08 July 2012 02:38:47PM 0 points [-]

It could be more than four. Someone might have upvoted you.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 06 July 2012 05:09:56PM 3 points [-]

After a while, Kit noticed that a large part of the pattern that made a bridge or a tower was built entirely out of people.

Kij Johnson, "The Man Who Bridged the Mist"

nominated for this year's Hugo

Comment author: tastefullyOffensive 06 July 2012 04:47:33PM 30 points [-]

Just explained the Higgs Boson to my friend even though I don't understand it myself. He was very convinced. I bet this is how religions get started.

-Rob DenBleyker

Comment author: ChrisNJ 10 July 2012 08:14:27PM 2 points [-]

Ha! I was in a checkout at the mall and pulled up a science blog to see the developments on the Higgs-Boson. When I heard the 99.9999% proof I literally could not hold in my verbal amazement. Well no one around me (mother, sister, scared check-out girl) had the slightest clue what it was about and explaining only led to resentment and confusion (despite using an apologetic light tone i.e. leaving out the "God Particle" association.)

Comment author: MixedNuts 09 July 2012 09:08:02PM 1 point [-]

I'm betting on psychotic episodes. Any way to settle it?

Comment author: DanArmak 13 July 2012 06:55:19PM 6 points [-]

Induce psychotic episodes in some people, explain Higgs boson to others, compare outcome religiosity.

Comment author: [deleted] 13 July 2012 10:43:14PM 4 points [-]

Now I'm reminded of when my mother phoned me asking me “what's about this God particle they've found and everyone's talking about? does it prove that God exist, or that God doesn't exist?” and I told her not to mind journalists as they don't understand a thing and they're just trying to sell newspapers, and to look at the cover picture on my Facebook profile instead. (It shows the Lagrangian of the Standard Model before symmetry breaking.) She was a bit disappointed by that. ;-)

Comment author: ChristianKl 06 July 2012 11:17:14AM *  8 points [-]

Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.

John Ioannidis Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Comment author: DanArmak 13 July 2012 06:58:42PM 1 point [-]

Combining the two statements, many research findings are inaccurate measures of the prevailing bias.

Comment author: arundelo 05 July 2012 02:13:49PM *  13 points [-]

However lousy it is to sit in your basement and pretend to be an elf, I can tell you from personal experience it's worse to sit in your basement and try to figure if Ginger or Mary Ann is cuter.

-- Clay Shirky

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 05 July 2012 06:28:09PM 30 points [-]

From the same page:

if you take Wikipedia as a kind of unit, all of Wikipedia, the whole project--every page, every edit, every talk page, every line of code, in every language that Wikipedia exists in--that represents something like the cumulation of 100 million hours of human thought. [...] And television watching? Two hundred billion hours, in the U.S. alone, every year. Put another way, now that we have a unit, that's 2,000 Wikipedia projects a year spent watching television. Or put still another way, in the U.S., we spend 100 million hours every weekend, just watching the ads. This is a pretty big surplus. People asking, "Where do they find the time?" when they're looking at things like Wikipedia don't understand how tiny that entire project is

This gives me a new perspective on human insanity, or more positively, on how much relatively low-hanging fruit is out there.

Comment author: faul_sname 03 August 2012 05:58:28PM 1 point [-]

if you take Wikipedia as a kind of unit, all of Wikipedia, the whole project--every page, every edit, every talk page, every line of code, in every language that Wikipedia exists in--that represents something like the cumulation of 100 million hours of human thought.

This seems ridiculously low. That's an average of less than one minute per person worldwide.

Comment author: thomblake 03 August 2012 08:21:57PM *  1 point [-]

I think I've spent about a minute contributing to Wikipedia - and I'm one of those rare humans with access to a computer and clean water.

EDIT: Wait, including talk pages... probably several minutes.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 03 August 2012 08:15:33PM 2 points [-]

Most people don't contribute to Wikipedia.

Comment author: arundelo 05 July 2012 02:07:13PM 5 points [-]

[H]ow you get to Carnegie Hall is you sell out Town Hall twice in a year, and now you sell enough tickets to do a show at Carnegie Hall.

-- Louis C.K.

Comment author: Stabilizer 05 July 2012 08:53:15AM 18 points [-]

A computer is like a violin. You can imagine a novice trying first a phonograph and then a violin. The latter, he says, sounds terrible. That is the argument we have heard from our humanists and most of our computer scientists. Computer programs are good, they say, for particular purposes, but they aren't flexible. Neither is a violin, or a typewriter, until you learn how to use it.

-Marvin Minsky

Thinking of your brain (and yourself) like an instrument to played might be useful for instrumental rationality.

Comment author: AngryParsley 05 July 2012 02:33:31AM 8 points [-]

I'd like to propose a new guideline for rationality quotes:

  • Please don't post multiple quotes from the same source.

I enjoy the Alpha Centauri quotes, but I think posting 5 of them at once is going a bit overboard. It dominates the conversation. I'm fine with them all getting posted eventually. If they're good quotes, they can wait a couple months.

Comment author: AspiringRationalist 04 July 2012 11:08:27PM *  4 points [-]

Never do anything on principle alone. If the principle of the thing is the only reason to do it, don't.

-- Bill Bryson

Comment author: Nominull 06 July 2012 02:52:37AM 2 points [-]

I think this is a bad principle to try to uphold. It means you have to understand the motivations behind all your principles, rather than just knowing that they are good principles. Which may be valuable for a small class of philosophers, but it's wasted effort for the general population.

Comment author: Joe 06 July 2012 09:13:47PM 0 points [-]

I doubt this is being put forward as a "principle to uphold" since that would be self-contradictory. It is probably aimed at the sorts of cases where someone might say "well I wouldn't have bothered but it was the principle of the thing".

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 07 July 2012 07:01:19AM 4 points [-]

And in most of those cases "the principle of the thing" refers to what we would call TDT/UDT-type considerations.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 04 July 2012 06:12:36PM 9 points [-]

Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good. In area after area - crime, education, housing, race relations - the situation has gotten worse after the bright new theories were put into operation. The amazing thing is that this history of failure and disaster has neither discouraged the social engineers nor discredited them.

-- Thomas Sowell

Comment author: AspiringRationalist 04 July 2012 11:07:12PM 9 points [-]

Without having a date on the quote, it's hard to know exactly which three decades he's referring to, but we certainly seem to be in a better position regarding crime, housing and race relations than three decades ago. Education, probably not so much. This sounds to me like just a meta-contrarian longing for a return to the imagined "good old days".

Comment author: sketerpot 06 July 2012 05:44:07AM *  10 points [-]

Without having a date on the quote, it's hard to know exactly which three decades he's referring to,

He published that in 1993, which was about at the historic peak of violent crime in the US since 1960. The situation has improved a lot since then, but through the decades of 1960-1990, things looked pretty grim.

Comment author: AspiringRationalist 06 July 2012 08:17:37PM 1 point [-]

Good to know. Updated.

Comment author: [deleted] 05 July 2012 06:01:13AM 10 points [-]

Crime.

In the US at least the murder rates today are comparable to those of the 1960s only because of advances in trauma medicine.

Comment author: Nornagest 06 July 2012 07:08:17AM *  1 point [-]

I've no idea of the data's provenance, but this table claims aggravated assault rates of 86/100,000 in 1960, 440/100,000 in 1993, and 252/100,000 in 2010 if I've got my math right. Murder rates are 5.08/100,000, 9.51/100,000, and 4.77/100,000 respectively. So the decline in murder since 1993 has outpaced the decline in assault (it also rose less steeply between '60 and '93), and trauma medicine's a plausible cause, but both declines are quite real: I wouldn't say the comparison to the 1960s is valid only because of medical improvements.

In any case, 1960 was more like fifty years ago. The per-100,000 aggravated assault rate in 1980 was just under 300 -- substantially over the 2010 numbers.

Comment author: Vladimir_M 05 July 2012 05:36:02PM 9 points [-]

Another important reason is that Americans have in the meantime embraced a lifestyle that would have struck earlier generations as incredibly paranoid siege mentality. (But which is completely understandable given the realities of the crime wave in the second half of the 20th century.)

Yet another reason is, of course, the draconian toughening of law enforcement and criminal penalties.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 06 July 2012 05:19:58AM 0 points [-]

Yet another reason is, of course, the draconian toughening of law enforcement and criminal penalties.

Which would, nevertheless, be considered absurdly lenient by the standards of any pre-20th century society.

Comment author: Vladimir_M 07 July 2012 04:27:25AM 8 points [-]

I wouldn't call the present U.S. system "absurdly lenient." The system is bungling, inefficient, and operating under numerous absurd rules and perverse incentives imposed by ideology and politics. At the same time, it tries to compensate for this, wherever possible, by ever harsher and more pitiless severity. It also increasingly operates with the mentality and tactics of an armed force subduing a hostile population, severed from all normal human social relations.

The end result is a dysfunctional system, unable to reduce crime to a reasonable level and unable to ensure a tolerable level of public safety -- but if you're unlucky enough to attract its attention, guilty or innocent, "absurd leniency" is most definitely not what awaits you.

Comment author: [deleted] 05 July 2012 05:49:35PM *  5 points [-]

To clarify I was commenting on murder rates specifically in light of how trauma medicine has reduced the fraction of violent assaults that cause death. The factors you describe seem more along the lines of avoiding violent assault in the first place.

Controlling for improvements in trauma medicine, today's murder rate would be three times that of the 1960s, but the numbers would be better than the controlled for medicine 1990s numbers, which where five times 1960s levels.

In other words yes in the past 20 years Americans seem to be getting assaulted less and I think all of what you describe played a role. There is also the unfortunate problem of police sometimes having nasty incentives to misclassify crimes so some of the drop might be fictional.

Comment author: Alicorn 05 July 2012 06:08:33AM 3 points [-]

Interesting. Where did you find this fact? Are there others like it there?

Comment author: [deleted] 05 July 2012 06:28:10AM *  9 points [-]

Murder and Medicine: The Lethality of Criminal Assault 1960-1999

Despite the proliferation of increasingly dangerous weapons and the very large increase in rates of serious criminal assault, since 1960, the lethality of such assault in the United States has dropped dramatically. This paradox has barely been studied and needs to be examined using national time-series data. Starting from the basic view that homicides are aggravated assaults with the outcome of the victim’s death, we assembled evidence from national data sources to show that the principal explanation of the downward trend in lethality involves parallel developments in medical technology and related medical support services that have suppressed the homicide rate compared to what it would be had such progress not been made.We argue that research into the causes and deterrability of homicide would benefit from a “lethality perspective” that focuses on serious assaults, only a small proportion of which end in death.

To be clear there are other possible explanations for why violent assault as recorded has become less lethal, I just think this one is by far the most plausible.

Comment author: Alicorn 05 July 2012 04:56:06PM 8 points [-]

I always think it's weird on cop shows and the like where an assaulter is in custody, the victim is in the hospital, and someone says "If he dies, you're in big trouble!". The criminal has already done whatever he did, and now somehow the severity of that doing rests with the competence of doctors.

Comment author: asparisi 13 July 2012 01:15:22AM 1 point [-]

It makes sense as an interrogation tactic, at any rate. If you're going for a confession and the person is distraught (either by what they did or by getting caught doing what they did) then it's a variation on "confess now or you'll get a worse sentence" with the added bonus that the timeline on the "confess" is both out of the interrogator's hands and it doesn't seem artifiical to the suspect.

Comment author: komponisto 07 July 2012 05:32:11AM 2 points [-]

Indeed, this seems to be an area where the legal system opts for a consequentialist approach; no surprise, then, that you would find it weird.

Comment author: scav 09 July 2012 08:21:35AM 1 point [-]

Um, I thought consequentialism was about evaluating the goodness of a course of action based on its probable consequences. If all it amounts to is hindsight then it's not much use for making ethical decisions about future actions. But I think that would be a straw man.

If you apply that crazy approach to consequentialism then I should be allowed to stand on a roof heaving bricks out into the street, and I'm not doing anything wrong unless and until one of them actually hits somebody.

Comment author: komponisto 09 July 2012 03:07:06PM 2 points [-]

Consequentialism is about deriving the ethical value of actions from their consequences. If someone thinks that the badness of an action is not determined until the consequences are known (like the police in Alicorn's example, or more to the pont the legal system they represent), then, necessarily, they are applying consequentialist moral intuitions, and not deontological moral intuitions.

No one said anything about "all it amounts to" being "hindsight". Your second paragraph is a straw man. While it is true that if someone believes that, they must be a consequentialist, it does not follow that a consequentialist must necessarily believe that.

Comment author: scav 09 July 2012 04:13:05PM 1 point [-]

I did say that it would be a straw man version of consequentialism. But I think I misunderstood what you were saying, or at least where your emphasis was, so I was kind of talking past you there :(

Thankfully in other areas the law is not concerned only with the contingent consequences of actions in general. Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. Attempted murder is a crime. Blackmail is a crime even if the victim refuses to be bullied and the blackmailer doesn't follow through on their threat. Kidnapping isn't considered to be babysitting if the victim is released unharmed.

So yeah. I think anyone could find it a little weird with or without calling it consequentialist.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 05 July 2012 05:18:45PM *  1 point [-]

Well, I suppose it's easier to prove that the victim could have died from the violence inflicted, if they do actually die.... but yeah, on the whole I agree.

Comment author: Alicorn 05 July 2012 05:51:20PM 1 point [-]

If we're relying on doctor competence anyway here, we could see about getting official professional opinions on to what extent the injuries could have been lethal. Like retroactive triage.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 05 July 2012 05:18:08PM 1 point [-]

I can see the logic of treating the severity of the crime as contingent on the actions (and perhaps intentions) of the criminal rather than the actual results, such that the fact that someone dies as a consequence of my battering them doesn't make it an act of murder.

But that also applies to shorter-window consequences, like when I shoot someone and they dodge to the left and the bullet hits them in the shoulder vs. I shoot someone, they dodge to the right, and the bullet hits them in the throat.

Treating the severity of the crime as contingent on consequences in the firing-a-gun case and contingent on actions in the battering-someone case would seem equally weird to me.

Comment author: Multiheaded 04 July 2012 07:29:43PM *  -1 points [-]

race relations

Downvoted for several obvious reasons. Seriously, just fucking THINK of the quote in this context a little bit!

Comment author: sketerpot 04 July 2012 07:54:48PM *  9 points [-]

Are you assuming that Thomas Sowell is defending, say, racial discrimination? If so, then you'd be wrong. He's talking about things like affirmative action which are intended to help disadvantaged groups, but which he contends have had the exact opposite effect.

If you meant something else, then please say it instead of assuming that it's obvious.

Comment author: Multiheaded 04 July 2012 07:59:57PM *  1 point [-]

Oh, sorry! I did indeed assume just that (and some things about the general racial supremacist attitude of Western societies before decolonization, etc), while totally overlooking that he's an American and that they indeed have that curious issue. In fact... yeah, not to defend my brashness or anything, but mentioning "race relations" in that context so off-handedly is indeed bound to make people think of one as a Segregationist or something!

Comment author: Zack_M_Davis 04 July 2012 11:47:27PM 10 points [-]

totally overlooking that [Thomas Sowell is] an American

He also happens to be black, if that's relevant.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 04 July 2012 07:47:30PM 5 points [-]

Can you expand on what additional information you believe you're providing when you "explain" a downvote in this way, rather than just downvoting silently?

From where I sit the "explanation" seems purely an attempt to shame Viliam_Bur in public, and by extension to shame anyone who might agree with that quote or think it at all compelling. Is that what you have in mind?

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 04 July 2012 06:05:47PM 9 points [-]

Intellectuals may like to think of themselves as people who "speak truth to power" but too often they are people who speak lies to gain power.

-- Thomas Sowell

Comment author: TimS 10 July 2012 05:30:35PM 2 points [-]

Depending on the speaker, this quote has the potential for reinforcing substantial status quo bias, since taking it serious would dramatically reduce the frequency of truly attempting to speak truth to power. In other words, the quote seems tailor-made for justifying a generalized counter-argument to all speak-truth-to-power actions.

Comment author: hairyfigment 09 July 2012 07:56:21PM 1 point [-]

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies! But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever, For in thee we live and move and have our being.

— Epimenides the Cretan

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 04 July 2012 06:04:50PM *  3 points [-]

It may be expecting too much to expect most intellectuals to have common sense, when their whole life is based on their being uncommon -- that is, saying things that are different from what everyone else is saying. There is only so much genuine originality in anyone. After that, being uncommon means indulging in pointless eccentricities or clever attempts to mock or shock.

-- Thomas Sowell

Retracted, because it's a duplicate.

Comment author: gwern 05 July 2012 02:02:22AM 7 points [-]

"Those writers who lay on the watch for novelty, could have little hope of greatness; for great things cannot have escaped former observation."

--Dr. Samuel Johnson; "The Life of Cowley", Lives of the English Poets (1781)

Comment author: Nominull 04 July 2012 07:25:48PM -1 points [-]

duplicate

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 05 July 2012 08:52:11AM 3 points [-]
Comment author: mwengler 04 July 2012 06:03:15PM *  0 points [-]

I predict that if we were to poll professional economists a century from now about who is the intellectual founder of the discipline [economics], I say we'd get a majority responding by naming Charles Darwin, not Adam Smith.

Robert H. Frank, 2011 September 12, speaking on Russ Roberts' EconTalk podcast. The rest of the quote can be found near 14:11 in the transcript. Robert H Frank was talking a lot about his book The Darwin Economy: Liberty, Competition, and the Common Good.

Comment author: Swimmy 04 July 2012 07:59:01PM 6 points [-]

Interesting, and I would happily bet against that prediction.

Comment author: Alejandro1 04 July 2012 08:11:35AM *  14 points [-]

Religion begins by being taken for granted; after a time, it is elaborately proved; at last comes a time (the present) when the whole effort is to induce people to let it alone.

--John Stuart Mill (1854).

Comment author: mindspillage 04 July 2012 06:08:12AM *  36 points [-]

The words "I am..." are potent words; be careful what you hitch them to. The thing you're claiming has a way of reaching back and claiming you.

--A.L. Kitselman

Comment author: sketerpot 04 July 2012 07:59:42PM 12 points [-]

See also Paul Graham's essay Keep Your Identity Small, on the same subject.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 July 2012 05:43:39AM 24 points [-]

We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?

--- Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7. Activity recorded M.Y. 2302.22467. (TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED)

From Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

Comment author: [deleted] 04 July 2012 05:41:30AM 10 points [-]

And here we tinker with metal, to try to give it a kind of life, and suffer those who would scoff at our efforts. But who's to say that, if intelligence had evolved in some other form in past millennia, the ancestors of these beings would not now scoff at the idea of intelligence residing within meat?

--Prime Function Aki Zeta-5, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

Comment author: mwengler 04 July 2012 06:15:07PM 0 points [-]

@Konkvistador you will enjoy They're Made Out Of Meat

Comment author: Cyan 04 July 2012 06:34:57PM 7 points [-]
Comment author: shminux 04 July 2012 04:09:21AM *  3 points [-]

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.

Susan B. Anthony

Comment author: sketerpot 04 July 2012 08:20:23AM *  7 points [-]

That is not always true.

Comment author: MixedNuts 09 July 2012 09:15:07PM 4 points [-]

Mortification of the flesh is at least a mixed case. Delicious kinky endorphins.

Comment author: Swimmer963 04 July 2012 04:03:51AM 5 points [-]

In the case of any person whose judgement is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because it has been his practice to listen to all that could be said against him; to profit by as much of it as was just, and expound to himself...the fallacy of what was fallacious.

–John Stuart Mill

Comment author: algekalipso 04 July 2012 02:54:59AM 1 point [-]

"'Whereof one cannot speak thereof be silent,' the seventh and final proposition of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, is to me the most beautiful but also the most errant. 'Whereof one cannot speak thereof write books, and music, and invent new and better terminology through mathematics and science,' something like that, is how I would put it. Or, if one is not predisposed to some such productivity, '. . . thereof look steadfastly and directly into it forever.'"

-- Daniel Kolak, comment on a post by Gordon Cornwall.

Comment author: ChristianKl 04 July 2012 10:01:23AM *  5 points [-]

This misses the point that Wittgenstein made. Inventing better terminology doesn't help you if you don't have any information in the first place.

Something might have happened before the big bang. The big bang erased all information about what happened before the big bang. Therefore we shouldn't speak about what happened before the big bang.

Gods might exist or might not exist. We don't have any evidence to decide whether they exist. Therefore we should stop speaking about gods.

To come to a question that more central to this community: We have no way to decide through the scientific method whether the Many Worlds Hypothesis is true. According to Wittgenstein we should therefore be silent.

Inventing new terminology doesn't help with those issues.

Comment author: Danfly 04 July 2012 11:56:20AM *  3 points [-]

I'm by no means an expert on this, but I was under the impression that Wittgenstein meant that language was an insufficient tool to express the "things we must pass over in silence", e.g. metaphysics, religion, ethics etc., but that he nevertheless believed that these were the only things worth talking about. My understanding was that he believed that language is only good for dealing with the world of hard facts and the natural sciences and, while we cannot use it to express certain things, some of these things might be "shown" by different means, in line with his comment that the unwritten part of the tractatus was the most important part.

This conclusion from one of hist lectures largely sums up how I would understand his view of many of the "things we must pass over in silence".

"This running against the walls of our cage is perfectly, absolutely hopeless. Ethics so far as it springs from the desire to say something about the ultimate meaning of life, the absolute good, the absolute valuable, can be no science. What it says does not add to our knowledge in any sense. But it is a document of a tendency in the human mind which I personally cannot help respecting deeply and I would not for my life ridicule it."

This is largely the way I have been led to interpret it through reading other people's interpretations and it is probably wrong, but I thought that I'd try and express it here, because I do have a strong desire to expand my knowledge of Wittgensteinian philosophy. One thing which I do think is quite likely though, is that Wittgenstein would consider any written "interpretation" of his work to ultimately be "nonsense" insofar as any written part of it is concerned.

Comment author: Danfly 06 July 2012 10:27:16AM 0 points [-]

I just noticed how poorly written part of my above comment was. I think I've fixed it now. I'm glad to see a positive response to it at least, since it shows that people care more about substance than the clarity of writing, which seems more than a little apt when talking about Wittgenstein. It also indicates that I haven't been entirely misled in my interpretation of a notoriously difficult philosopher.

As much as it might be fun to pretend that my strange writing style was intended as a way of reaching people with "similar thoughts" in a truly Wittgensteinian sense, it was not. It was a boring old mistype. I am nowhere near smart enough to pull that off.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 04 July 2012 03:40:58PM 1 point [-]

IIRC, in "On Certainty" in particular, Wittgenstein had a lot to say about the role of language and how it is not primarily a mechanism for evaluating the truth-value of propositions but rather a mechanism for getting people to do things. In particular, I think he dismisses the entire enterprise of Cartesian doubt as just a game we play with language; arguing that statements like "There exists an external reality" and "There exists no external reality" simply don't mean anything.

So I'd be surprised if he were on board with language as a particularly useful tool for hard facts or natural sciences, either.

Admittedly, it's been like 20 years since I read it, and it's a decidedly gnomic book to begin with, and I'm no kind of expert on Wittgenstein. So take it with a pound of salt.

Comment author: Alejandro1 05 July 2012 07:21:43AM 2 points [-]

The Tractatus is a product of what is called the early or first Wittgenstein, while "On Certainty" belongs to his latter stage. By that time he had repudiated the emphasis of the Tractatus on logical correspondence with facts and switched to speaking of language games and practical uses. In both phases his position on "unspeakable" things like ethics and metaphysics was similar (roughly the one Danfly summarizes at the beginning of the parent quote).

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 03 July 2012 06:17:44PM 27 points [-]

We find it difficult and disturbing to hold in our minds arguments of the form ‘On the one hand, on the other.’ If we are for capital punishment we want it to be good in all respects, with no serious drawbacks; if we are against it, we want it to be bad in all respects, with no serious advantages. We want the world of facts to dictate to us, virtually, how to act; but this it will never do. We always have to make a choice.

-- Theodore Dalrymple, article in "Library of Law and Liberty".

Comment author: MixedNuts 04 July 2012 01:17:11AM 7 points [-]

It's strange that we have many phrases like "on the one/other hand", "pros and cons", and "both sides of the story", then.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 06 July 2012 05:04:47AM *  1 point [-]

It's strange that we have many phrases like "on the one/other hand", "pros and cons", and "both sides of the story", then.

No, those phrases exist to help patch the flaw in human reasoning the parent describes. In fact it would be strange that we had those phrases and the corresponding flaw didn't exist.

Comment author: ScottMessick 04 July 2012 05:50:09PM 6 points [-]

These phrases are mainly used in near mode, or when trying to induce near mode. The phenomenon described in the quote is a feature (or bug) of far mode.

Comment author: Fyrius 04 July 2012 09:30:01AM *  6 points [-]

Not wanting to take a principle to heart is not the same thing as denying that's the way things work, though. I think most people acknowledge (or at least give lip service) that being able to be objective is virtuous and often important. Even the ones who are rubbish at actually being so in real life.

And of course it's entirely possible to be blatantly one-sided about capital punishment, but still want to hear both sides of the story when your kids are having an argument.

And of course it's also entirely possible to realise you should be objective, even if that's more difficult and disturbing and less satisfying. You can just grit your teeth and tell your need for one-sidedness to shut up and let you think properly.