Vladimir_Nesov comments on Dissenting Views - Less Wrong

19 Post author: byrnema 26 May 2009 06:55PM

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

Comments (207)

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

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 05 June 2009 11:22:31PM *  4 points [-]

Emotion is not irrational. Luck can't be irrational, because it doesn't exist. Aspects of human thought, such as imagination, are the bedrock of human rationality.

Comment author: pjeby 05 June 2009 11:44:18PM 1 point [-]

Luck can't be irrational, because it doesn't exist.

Really? At least one scientist appears to disagree with you:

Wiseman, 37, is head of a psychology research department at the University of Hertfordshire in England. For the past eight years, he and his colleagues at the university's Perrott-Warrick Research Unit have studied what makes some people lucky and others not. After conducting thousands of interviews and hundreds of experiments, Wiseman now claims that he's cracked the code. Luck isn't due to kismet, karma, or coincidence, he says. Instead, lucky folks -- without even knowing it -- think and behave in ways that create good fortune in their lives.

Comment author: Cyan 05 June 2009 11:59:08PM 1 point [-]

If we define "luck" as an unusual propensity for fortunate/unfortunate things to happen at random, then Wiseman does not disagree. Wiseman explains the subjective experience of luck in terms of more fundamental character traits that give rise to predictable tendencies. There's nothing irrational about it; arational, maybe, but not irrational.

Comment author: pjeby 06 June 2009 12:17:27AM 0 points [-]

If we define "luck" as an unusual propensity for fortunate/unfortunate things to happen at random, then Wiseman does not disagree. Wiseman explains the subjective experience of luck in terms of more fundamental character traits that give rise to predictable tendencies.

Yes, exactly. The fact that the typical person's understanding of "luck" does not include a correct theory of how "luck" occurs, doesn't prevent them from observing that there is in fact such a thing and that people vary in their degree of having it.

This sort of thing happens a lot, because human brains are very good at picking up certain kinds of patterns about things that matter to them. They're just very bad at coming up with truthful explanations, as opposed to simple predictive models or useful procedures!

The crowd that believes in "The Secret" is talking about many of the same things as Wiseman's research; I've seen all 4 of his principles in the LoA literature before. I haven't read his book, but my guess is that I will have already seen better practical instruction in these principles from books that were written by people who claim to be channeling beings from another dimension... which would just go to show how better theories aren't always related to better practices.

To be fair, it is a Fast Company piece on the research; I really ought to read the actual book before I judge. Still, from previous experience, scientific advice tends to be dreadfully vague compared to the advice of people who have experience coaching other people at doing something. (i.e. scientific advice is usually much more suggestive than prescriptive, and more about "what" than "how".)

Comment author: antisingularity 06 June 2009 01:16:00AM 0 points [-]

I agree that emotion is not totally irrational. There are systems to it, most of which we probably don't understand in the slightest.

"Relinquish the emotion which rests upon a mistaken belief, and seek to feel fully that emotion which fits the facts"

And how am I to know which emotion is the one that fits the facts? If I am cheated, should I be sad or angry (or maybe something else)? Give me an objective way to deal with every emotional situation and then we can call it rational.

I still think luck exists and is irrational. And imagination too.

Comment author: Jack 06 June 2009 02:33:52AM *  2 points [-]

Do you mean luck as in the fact that random events occur to randomly distributed individuals and so some will have more good things than bad happen to them and others will have more bad things happen to them than good? Or do you mean that people have some ineffable quality which makes either good things or bad things more likely to occur to them? The first seems obviously true, the second strikes me as quite a claim.

btw, you blog is quite good. As someone with somewhat middle of the road views on singularity issues (more generous than you, more skeptical than most people here) your presence here is very welcome. I suggest those passing by check out the rest of the articles. Usually good to read both sides.

Comment author: antisingularity 06 June 2009 05:41:34PM 0 points [-]

Thanks for the compliments. I had initially been worried that I might be poorly received around here but people are genuinely encouraging and looking for debate and perspective.

As for luck, I am really referring to your first statement. Random events happening to distributed individuals. It's just a tendency in the universe, I know, that we happen to call luck. But, since we get to decide on what's good and what's bad, its seems to me that sometimes really improbably good things will happen (good luck) and sometimes very improbably bad things will happen (bad luck).