= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MugaSofer comments on Post ridiculous munchkin ideas! - 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 (1240)
You don't classify each type of .e.g voice hallucinated with schizophrenia. You could for example apply your argument to say "well, is the voice threatening to kill you only if you don't study for your test? If so, isn't the net effect beneficial, and as such it's not really a mental illness? If you like being motivated by your voices, you don't suffer from schizophrenia, that's only for people who dislike their voices."
I certainly cannot prove that there are no situations in which hallucinating imaginary people giving you advice would not be net beneficial, in fact, there certainly are situations in which any given potential mental illness may be beneficial. There have been studies about certain potential mental illnesses being predominant (or at least overrepresented) in certain professions, sometimes to the professional's benefit (also: taking cocaine may be beneficial. Certain tulpas may be beneficial.).
Who knows, maybe an unknown grand-uncle will leave a fortune to you, predicated on you being a drug-addict. In which case being a drug-addict would have been beneficial.
People dabble in alcohol to get a social edge, they usually refrain from heroin. Which reference class is a tulpa most like?
You can put a "Your Mileage May Vary" disclaimer to any advice, but actually hallucinating persons who then interact with you seems like it should belong in the DSM (where it is) way more than it should belong in a self-help guide.
Maybe when plenty of people have used tulpas for decades, and a representative sample of them can be used to prove their safety, there will be enough evidence to switch the reference class, to introduce a special case in the form of "hallucinations are a common symptom of schizophrenia, except tulpas". Until then, the default case would be using the reference class of "effects of hallucinating people", which is presumed harmful unless shown to be otherwise.
Isn't this a failure mode with a catchy name?
I think implicit in that question was, 'and how does it differ?'
A friend of mine has a joke in which he describes any arbitrary magic card (and later, things that weren't magic cards) by explaining how it differed from an Ornithopter (Suq'Ata Lancer is just like an Ornithopter except it's red instead of an artifact, and it has haste and flanking instead of flying, and it costs 2 and a red instead of 0, and it has 2 power instead of 0. Yup, just like an Ornithopter). The humor lay in the anti-compression - the descriptions were technically accurate, but rather harder to follow than they needed to be.
Eradicating the humor, you could alternately describe a Suq'Ata Lancer as a Gray Ogre with haste and flanking. The class of 'cards better than Gray Ogre' is a reference class that many magic players would be familiar with.
Trying to get a handle on the idea of the tulpa, it's reasonable to ask where to start before you try comparing it to an ornithopter.
Why would "which reference class is x most like" be a "failure mode"? Don't just word-match to the closest post including the phrase "reference class" which you remember.
When you're in a dark alley, and someone pulls a gun and approaches you, would it be a "failure mode" to ask yourself what reference class most closely matches the situation, then conclude you're probably getting mugged?
Saying "uFAI is like Terminator!" - "No, it's like Matrix!" would be reference class tennis, "which reference class is uFAI most like?" wouldn't be.
I think the term is "reference class tennis".