wedrifid comments on Proofs, Implications, and Models - Less Wrong

58 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 30 October 2012 01:02PM

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

Comments (209)

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

Comment author: TsviBT 30 October 2012 01:09:30AM 4 points [-]

Ok, fair enough. My philosophy professors were the logically-rudest adults I've spoken to. Actually, that's not even true. Rather, my philosophy professors were the people I most hoped would have less than the standard rudeness, but did not at all.

An anecdote: spring quarter last year, I tried to convince my philosophy professor that logic preserves certainty, but that we could (probably) never be absolutely certain that we had witnessed a correct derivation. He dodged, and instead sermonized about the history of logic. At one point I mentioned GEB, and he said, I quote, "Hofstadter is something of a one trick pony". Here, "one trick" refers to "self-reference". I was too flabbergasted to respond politely.

Comment author: wedrifid 30 October 2012 02:30:51AM 1 point [-]

I was too flabbergasted to respond politely.

I hope that means you refrain from responding at all. You can't fix broken high status people!

Wait. Oh bother. I try to do that all the time. But I at least tend to direct my efforts towards influencing the social environment such that the incentives for securing said status further are changed so that on the margin the behavior of the high-status people (including, at times, logical rudeness) is somewhat altered. "Persuasion" of a kind.

Comment author: Ritalin 30 October 2012 12:42:13PM 1 point [-]

Name three ways of you performing said persuasion.

Comment author: wedrifid 30 October 2012 11:16:11PM 1 point [-]

Name three ways of you performing said persuasion.

No. Not at this time. (I would prefer to be not believed than to give examples of this right now.)

Comment author: Ritalin 31 October 2012 02:31:41PM 0 points [-]

Actually it was more on the line of "give me practical examples so I can extrapolate the rule better than from an abstract summary", but, sure, suit yourself.