JamesCole comments on Bad reasons for a rationalist to lose - Less Wrong

30 Post author: matt 18 May 2009 10:57PM

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

Comments (73)

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

Comment author: matt 19 May 2009 08:09:18AM *  3 points [-]

it's that ANY objection that stops you from actually trying something useful, means you fail. You lose. You are not being a smart, rational skeptic, you're being a dumbass loser.

So, you still need to know what's likely to be useful. You can waste a lot of time trying stuff that just isn't going to work.

(And, just in case it wasn't clear - I am a long (long long) way from the belief that Eliezer is "a dumbass loser" (which you don't quite say, but it's a confusion I'd like to avoid).)

Comment author: JamesCole 19 May 2009 08:29:50AM 2 points [-]

I'd also add:

  • there's heaps of stuff that's 'useful'. what matters is how useful it is - especially in relation to things that might be more useful. we all have limited time and (other) resources. it's a cost/benefit ratio. the good is the enemy of the great, and all that.

  • often it's unclear how useful something really is, you have to take this into account when you judge whether it's worth your while. and you also have to make a judgement about whether it's even worth your while to try evaluating it... coz there's always heaps and heaps of options and you can't spend your time evaluating them all.