= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Stephanie_Cunnane comments on Rationality Quotes April 2013 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (281)
-Paul Graham
I like the sentiment, but Paul Graham seems to be claiming that information hazards don't exist, and that doesn't appear to be true.
Despite agreeing with the rest of the essay (which is very good), this is not true. Tiresomely standard counter-example: "Heil Hitler! No, there are no Jews in my attic."
I would say this is not ALWAYS true. But for the purpose of civilized discussion between human beings, it does seem like a very useful rule of thumb.
Substitute "statement" with "belief".
Sorry, I don't understand. I believe there are Jews in my attic, but this belief should be suppressed, rather than spread.
This seems like fallacy of the excluded middle. Suppressed and spread are not the only two options.
If the nazi starts to believe it, you should suppress such a belief (probably by acting inocculuously, but if suppressing it violently would work better you should do that instead.)
Fair enough.
That statement is bad for the nazis, who are now unable to achieve their desires. The statement is about instrumental badness, not universal moral badness. They're really quite different.
I like the sentiment. I disagree that it is (always) the worst you can say about it. And there are also true things that are actively constructed to be misleading---I certainly go about suppressing those where possible and plan to continue.
Wouldn't explaining why the statement is misleading be more productive than suppressing the misleading statement?