Rationality Quotes March 2014

4 Post author: malcolmocean 01 March 2014 03:34PM

Another month has passed and here is a new rationality quotes thread. The usual rules are:

  • Please post all quotes separately, so that they can be upvoted or downvoted separately. (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments. If strongly ordered, then go ahead and post them together.)
  • Do not quote yourself.
  • Do not quote from Less Wrong itself, HPMoR, Eliezer Yudkowsky, or Robin Hanson. If you'd like to revive an old quote from one of those sources, please do so here.
  • No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.

Comments (326)

Comment author: malcolmocean 01 March 2014 03:35:08PM *  19 points [-]

Allow me to express now, once and for all, my deep respect for the work of the experimenter and for his fight to wring significant facts from an inflexible Nature, who says so distinctly "No" and so indistinctly "Yes" to our theories.

— Hermann Weyl

(quoted in Science And Sanity, by Alfred Korzybski, of "the map is not the territory" fame)

Comment author: Thomas 01 March 2014 04:29:55PM 28 points [-]

He says we could learn a lot from primitive tribes. But they could learn a lot more from us!

  • Jeremy Clarkson
Comment author: James_Miller 01 March 2014 06:04:21PM 7 points [-]

Yes, but on net primitive tribes (at least in the short-run) seem to be made worse off from contact with technologically advanced civilizations.

Comment author: DanArmak 01 March 2014 06:33:35PM 2 points [-]

Even after controlling for harmful or exploitative behavior by the advanced civilizations?

Comment author: James_Miller 01 March 2014 06:40:21PM 4 points [-]

Yes because of germs.

Comment author: bramflakes 01 March 2014 09:41:16PM 6 points [-]

Depends which primitive tribes. Amerindians died from European diseases and Europeans died from African diseases.

Comment author: DanArmak 01 March 2014 09:43:57PM 1 point [-]

Good point, but that doesn't fall under the "a lot to learn from" rubric. Your general point about contact is likely true.

Comment author: James_Miller 01 March 2014 09:49:18PM 0 points [-]

Pretend I'm a fantastic in-person teacher but if you get near me you will die of some disease. Do you have a lot to learn from me?

Comment author: DanArmak 02 March 2014 11:25:49AM 2 points [-]

As I said, your general point about net value of contact is correct.

Comment author: DanielLC 02 March 2014 11:16:06PM 2 points [-]

And germs.

Are the ideas harmful?

Comment author: James_Miller 03 March 2014 12:07:37AM 3 points [-]

Some religious views might be.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 March 2014 08:07:33PM 9 points [-]

I'm pretty sure most uncontacted tribes had their own religious weirdness.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 01 March 2014 06:37:26PM 3 points [-]

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that they could learn a lot from us. Indeed, if that weren't so, they

a) would be primitive and b) wouldn't be (especially and unusually) harmed by the contact.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 01 March 2014 06:38:15PM 3 points [-]

So, it's positive-sum. But anyway, who cares what a primitive tribe learns? We, surely, are the center and purpose of the universe; our gain, however small or large, is the important thing.

Comment author: James_Miller 01 March 2014 05:23:02PM 15 points [-]

If you're expecting the world to be fair with you because you are fair, you are fooling yourself. That's like expecting a lion not to eat you because you didn't eat him.

awesomequotes4u.com

Comment author: Salemicus 02 March 2014 10:30:49PM 22 points [-]

On the contrary, honesty, conscientiousness, being law-abiding, etc. have powerful reputational effects. This is easily seen by the converse; look, for example, at the effect a criminal record has on chance of getting a job.

This quote only gets any mileage by equivocating on the meaning of fair. What the quote is really saying is: "If you expect the world to fulfil even modest dreams just because you try not to be a jerk, expect disappointment." But said like that, if loses all its seemingly deep wisdom. In fact, of course, if you personally fulfilled even some modest dream of a large proportion of the people on earth, you would be wealthy beyond the dreams of lucre.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 March 2014 08:13:33PM 2 points [-]

It always struck me that "fair" is one of the most misused words we have. What we mean when we say "fairness" is a sense that socially-constructed games have fixed rules leading to predictable outcomes, when some notion of a social contract or other ethical framework is exercised. If you enter a game with no rules, what would it even mean to expect a fair reward for fair play?

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 05 March 2014 02:04:06PM *  7 points [-]

Most of the comment is great, but

if you personally fulfilled even some modest dream of a large proportion of the people on earth, you would be wealthy beyond the dreams of lucre.

this part seems like a Just World Fallacy. You can start a chain of cause and effect that will make billions of people a bit happier, and yet someone else may take the reward.

But I agree that on average making a lot of people happy is a good way to get wealthy.

Comment author: michaelkeenan 08 March 2014 06:42:53AM *  5 points [-]

I see the quote as warning against a certain kind of naivety. I'm known as a trustworthy person and it's brought me many advantages - people have happily loaned me large sums of money, for example, and I've been employed in high-trust-requiring positions. But I have cooperated in Prisoner's Dilemma-type situations when I really should have realized the other guy was going to defect. In one case, he'd told me he was a narcissist and a Slytherin, and I still thought he'd keep our agreement. I lost a lot.

Comment author: James_Miller 01 March 2014 05:27:27PM *  22 points [-]

[A]lmost no innovative programs work, in the sense of reliably demonstrating benefits in excess of costs in replicated RCTs [randomized controlled trials]. Only about 10 percent of new social programs in fields like education, criminology and social welfare demonstrate statistically significant benefits in RCTs. When presented with an intelligent-sounding program endorsed by experts in the topic, our rational Bayesian prior ought to be “It is very likely that this program would fail to demonstrate improvement versus current practice if I tested it.”

In other words, discovering program improvements that really work is extremely hard. We labor in the dark -- scratching and clawing for tiny scraps of causal insight.

Megan McArdle quoting or paraphrasing Jim Manzi.

[Edited in response to Kaj's comment.]

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 01 March 2014 06:00:17PM 4 points [-]

I think the quote is from Jim Manzi rather than Megan McArdle, given that McArdle starts the article with

I asked Jim Manzi, who has literally written the book on randomized controlled trials, to share his thoughts. Below is what he said:

and later on in the article it says

I agree with the weight and seriousness of each of these objections. My agreement is not ad hoc; I wrote a book that tried to describe how businesses have implemented experimental processes that operate in the face of all of these issues.

suggesting that the whole article after the first paragraph is a quote (or possibly paraphrase).

Comment author: Will_Sawin 01 March 2014 06:57:46PM 6 points [-]

10% isn't that bad as long as you continue the programs that were found to succeed and stop the programs that were found to fail. Come up with 10 intelligent-sounding ideas, obtain expert endorsements, do 10 randomized controlled trials, get 1 significant improvement. Then repeat.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 01 March 2014 07:20:31PM 4 points [-]

Unfortunately, governments are really bad at doing this.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 02 March 2014 12:21:46AM 28 points [-]

Humans in general are very bad at this. The only reason capitalism works is that the losing experiments run out of money.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 03 March 2014 07:08:55AM 9 points [-]

The only reason capitalism works is that the losing experiments run out of money.

That's a very powerful reason.

Comment author: Will_Sawin 03 March 2014 05:31:05PM 1 point [-]

True, but that doesn't mean we're laboring in the dark. It just means we've got our eyes closed.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 04 March 2014 01:48:54AM -1 points [-]

Unfortunately, the people involved have an incentive to keep them closed.

Comment author: Will_Sawin 04 March 2014 02:42:39AM 1 point [-]

I don't think that's really relevant to the original quote.

Comment author: ThrustVectoring 02 March 2014 10:46:31AM 0 points [-]

It depends on how many completely ineffectual programs would demonstrate improvement versus current practices.

Comment author: ChristianKl 03 March 2014 11:53:40AM 8 points [-]

10% isn't that bad as long as you continue the programs that were found to succeed and stop the programs that were found to fail.

Unfortunately we don't really have the political system to do this.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 March 2014 05:00:26PM 4 points [-]

But I have this great idea that will change that!

...Oh.

Comment author: CCC 03 March 2014 02:03:33PM 6 points [-]

Only about 10 percent of new social programs in fields like education, criminology and social welfare demonstrate statistically significant benefits in RCTs

This is a higher rate than I'd expected. It implies that current policies in these three fields are not really thoroughly thought out, or at least not to the extent that I had expected. It seems that there is substantial room for improvement.

I would have expected perhaps one or two percent.

Comment author: pgbh 06 March 2014 04:50:38AM 5 points [-]

Remember that programs will not even be tested unless there are good reasons to expect improvement over current protocol. Most programs that are explicitly considered are worse than those that are tested, and most possible programs are worse than those that are explicitly considered. Therefore we can expect that far, far fewer than ten percent of possible programs would yield significant improvements.

Comment author: CCC 07 March 2014 08:32:24AM 2 points [-]

That is true. However, there is a second filtering process, after filtering by experts; and that is what I will refer to as filtering by experiment (i.e. we'll try this, and if it works we keep doing it, and if it doesn't we don't). Evolution is basically a mix of random mutation and filtering by experiment, and it shows that, given enough time, such a filter can be astonishingly effective. (That time can be drastically reduced by adding another filter - such as filtering-by-experts - before the filtering-by-experiment step)

The one-to-two percent expectation that I had was a subconscious expectation of the comparison of the effectiveness of the filtering-by-experts in comparison to the filtering-by-experiment over time. Investigating my reasoning more thoroughly, I think that what I had failed to appreciate is probably that there really hasn't been enough time for filtering-by-experiment to have as drastic an effect as I'd assumed; societies change enough over time that what was a good idea a thousand years ago is probably not going to be a good idea now. (Added to this, it likely takes more than a month to see whether such a social program actually is effective or not; so there hasn't really been time for all that many consecutive experiments, and there hasn't really been a properly designed worldwide experimental test model, either).

Comment author: Lumifer 11 March 2014 05:22:06PM 3 points [-]

It implies that current policies in these three fields are not really thoroughly thought out, or at least not to the extent that I had expected.

That's one possible explanation.

Another possible explanation is that there is a variety of powerful stakeholders in these fields and the new social programs are actually designed to benefit them and not whoever the programs claim to help.

Comment author: maia 13 March 2014 02:26:35PM 2 points [-]

Remember, you expect 5% to give a statistically significant result just by chance...

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 01 March 2014 05:52:25PM *  30 points [-]

The use with children of experimental [educational] methods, that is, methods that have not been finally assessed and found effective, might seem difficult to justify. Yet the traditional methods we use in the classroom every day have exactly this characteristic--they are highly experimental in that we know very little about their educational efficacy in comparison with alternative methods. There is widespread cynicism among students and even among practiced teachers about the effectiveness of lecturing or repetitive drill (which we would distinguish from carefully designed practice), yet these methods are in widespread use. Equally troublesome, new "theories" of education are introduced into schools every day (without labeling them as experiments) on the basis of their philosophical or common-sense plausibility but without genuine empirical support. We should make a larger place for responsible experimentation that draws on the available knowledge--it deserves at least as large a place as we now provide for faddish, unsystematic and unassessed informal "experiments" or educational "reforms."

-- John R. Anderson, Lynne M. Reder & Herbert A. Simon: Applications and Misapplications of Cognitive Psychology to Mathematics Education

Comment author: Apprentice 01 March 2014 05:53:24PM *  6 points [-]

Ye say that those ancient prophecies are true. Behold, I say that ye do not know that they are true.

Ye say that this people is a guilty and a fallen people, because of the transgression of a parent. Behold, I say that a child is not guilty because of its parents.

And ye also say that Christ shall come. But behold, I say that ye do not know that there shall be a Christ. And ye say also that he shall be slain for the sins of the world –

And thus ye lead away this people after the foolish traditions of your fathers, and according to your own desires; and ye keep them down, even as it were in bondage, that ye may glut yourselves with the labors of their hands, that they durst not look up with boldness, and that they durst not enjoy their rights and privileges.

Yea, they durst not make use of that which is their own lest they should offend their priests, who do yoke them according to their desires, and have brought them to believe, by their traditions and their dreams and their whims and their visions and their pretended mysteries, that they should, if they did not do according to their words, offend some unknown being, who they say is God -- a being who never has been seen or known, who never was nor ever will be.

-- The Book of Mormon (Alma 30.24-28)

Edit: I'm mildly surprised by the reactions to this quote. The thing I find interesting about it is that Joseph Smith was apparently sufficiently familiar with Voltairesque anti-Christian ideas that he could relay them coherently and with some gusto. This goes some way towards passing the ideological Turing test.

Comment author: elharo 01 March 2014 10:57:41PM *  13 points [-]

I'm hardly an expert on the Book of Mormon, but this quote surprised me so I googled it. It appears to be an accurate quote but is not fully attributed. As best I can make out, the speaker is the antichrist (or some such evil character; not sure on the exact mythology in play here).

Failure to note that means this quote gives either an incorrect view of the Book of Mormon, or of the significance of the text, or both.

When quoting fiction, I recommend identifying both the character and the author. E.g.

Ye say that those ancient prophecies are true. Behold, I say that ye do not know that they are true.

--Korihor in the The Book of Mormon (Alma 30.24-28); Joseph Smith, 1830

Having said all that, it's still a damn good rationality quote.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 March 2014 08:17:59PM 0 points [-]

I would think it's bad publicity for us to explicitly note a resemblance to antichrist-type characters.

Comment author: blacktrance 05 March 2014 11:48:15PM 6 points [-]

Unless we're trying to appeal to contrarians.

Comment author: Strange7 09 March 2014 12:45:03AM 4 points [-]

Considering how much hating on religion there already is around here, I don't think there's much left to lose on that front.

Comment author: [deleted] 09 March 2014 06:54:29PM 5 points [-]

Ah, of course, because it's more important to signal one's pure, untainted epistemic rationality than to actually get anything done in life, which might require interacting with outsiders.

Comment author: Nornagest 10 March 2014 01:41:58AM *  1 point [-]

Upvoted because that really is a failure mode worth keeping in mind, but I don't think it's responsible for the attitude towards religion around here; I think that's a plain old founder effect.

Comment author: ChrisHallquist 10 March 2014 02:23:10AM 0 points [-]

Ah, of course, because it's more important to signal one's pure, untainted epistemic rationality than to actually get anything done in life, which might require interacting with outsiders.

This is a failure mode I worry about, but I'm not sure ironic atheist re-appropriation of religious texts is going to turn off anyone we had a chance of attracting in the first place. Will reconsider this position if someone says, "oh yeah, my deconversion process was totally slowed down by stuff like that from atheists," but I'd be surprised.

Comment author: Strange7 13 March 2014 05:09:18AM 0 points [-]

"Pick a side and stick with it, supporting your friends and bashing your enemies at every cost-effective opportunity" is the dominant strategy in factional politics much the same way tit-for-tat is dominant in iterative prisoner's dilemma. Generosity to strangers and mercy to enemies are so heavily encouraged because in the absence of that encouragement they're the rare, virtuous exception.

Yes, obviously we have to interact with outsiders. That's what makes them outsiders, rather than meaningless hypothetical aliens beyond our light-cone. The question is, should we be interacting with organized religion by trying to ally with, or at least avoid threatening, the people in charge? Or by threatening them so comprehensively that (figuratively speaking) we destroy their armies and take their cattle for our own?

The antichrist is a hypothetical figure who poses the greatest possible ideological threat, an exploit against which the overwhelming majority of Christianity's (worldly) resources and personnel cannot be secured. The popular theory is, that individual's public actions would trigger the ultimate 'evaporative cooling' event. Everybody who doesn't really believe, everybody who just checks "christian" on the census form and shows up to church for the social network and the pancakes, will stop doing so. In short, the sanity waterline would rise.

Comment author: James_Miller 01 March 2014 06:28:22PM 8 points [-]

Never abandon life. There is a way out of everything except death.

Winston Churchill

Comment author: dspeyer 01 March 2014 06:43:02PM 39 points [-]

In our large, anonymous society, it's easy to forget moral and reputational pressures and concentrate on legal pressure and security systems. This is a mistake; even though our informal social pressures fade into the background, they're still responsible for most of the cooperation in society.

  • Bruce Schneier, expert in security systems
Comment author: ChristianKl 03 March 2014 11:51:47AM 4 points [-]

Could you link the source of the quote?

Comment author: FiftyTwo 04 March 2014 10:21:05AM 4 points [-]
Comment author: dspeyer 06 March 2014 05:25:23PM 5 points [-]

It's in chapter 16 of Liars and Outliers, which AFAIK has no url.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 01 March 2014 06:54:55PM 10 points [-]

As the marijuana legalization movement strengthens, you can see hints of how hard it is to hit the libertarian sweet spot where something is simultaneously legalized but remains rare and distasteful. People, especially young people, pick up messages from society about what is winning and what is losing more than they pick up nuanced messages. Smoking tobacco is losing so it seems reasonable to ban smoking it even in your own car while driving through a brushfire zone. Smoking marijuana is winning, so it doesn't seem like the ban on smoking in Laurel Canyon applies to dope.

Steve Sailer

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 01 March 2014 07:29:06PM -1 points [-]

And the probability-related problems with social and biological science do not stop there: it has bigger problems with researchers using statistical notions out of a can without understanding them and babbling "n of 1" or "n large", or "this is anecdotal" (for a large Black Swan style deviation), mistaking anecdotes for information and information for anecdote. It was shown that the majority use regression in their papers in "prestigious" journals without quite knowing what it means, and what claims can—and cannot—be made from it. Because of little check from reality and lack of skin-in-the-game, coupled with a fake layer of sophistication, social scientists can make elementary mistakes with probability yet continue to thrive professionally.

Nassim Taleb

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 01 March 2014 07:30:40PM 3 points [-]

Supposedly, if you are totally uncompromising and intolerant with BS (particularly harmful BS), you lose friends. These are good friends to lose, for you will also make new friends, better friends.

Nassim Taleb

Comment author: malcolmocean 01 March 2014 07:40:25PM 1 point [-]

Really curious about the "supposedly" in this. Does Nassim not actually believe or endorse this view?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 01 March 2014 07:45:04PM 0 points [-]

Taleb is responding to the common claim that one shouldn't call out BS because one will thus loose friends.

Comment author: Vaniver 02 March 2014 08:16:34AM 2 points [-]

Really curious about the "supposedly" in this. Does Nassim not actually believe or endorse this view?

I read it as him endorsing the empirical proposition, but not the value proposition. That's the point of the second sentence- he wouldn't say "these are good friends to lose" if there wasn't the potential to lose friends.

Comment author: ChristianKl 03 March 2014 11:50:37AM -1 points [-]

Nassim doesn't advocate that you should become totally uncompromising toward BS as a technique to change the people with whom you hang out.

He doesn't advocate that you should optimize your tactics in that way to get better friends. He rather advocates authenticity where you don't hide by avoiding to call out BS because you are afraid of offending other people.

If being authentic means calling out BS than do it. If being authentic for you means to not confront other people about the BS they talk about, don't.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 01 March 2014 07:31:39PM 2 points [-]

The general principle of antifragility, it is much better to do things you cannot explain than explain things you cannot do.

Nassim Taleb

Comment author: The_Duck 01 March 2014 11:51:48PM 7 points [-]

What does this mean?

Comment author: philh 02 March 2014 01:20:47AM 3 points [-]

I interpret it as related to expert-at versus expert-on. If you assume that an expert-on is always an expert-at, then someone explaining something they can't do is clearly not an expert.

I'm not sure that assumption is true, though I could believe it's a useful rule of thumb.

Comment author: soreff 02 March 2014 05:48:08AM 0 points [-]

I don't know, but it sounds similar to "It's smarter to be lucky than it's lucky to be smart."

Comment author: DanielLC 02 March 2014 11:19:29PM 3 points [-]

My interpretation is that having an explanation for something is useless if you can't actually make it happen. And even if you don't fully understand how something works, it's good to be able to use it.

For example, I would much rather be able to use a computer than know how it works.

Also, if you can't do it, that calls into question whether your explanation is actually valid. Anyone can explain something, so long as they're not required to actually make the explanation useful.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 March 2014 08:14:56PM 2 points [-]

So we could rephrase as: "If I really understand X's, I can build one, but if I kind of understand X's, I can at least use one"?

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 08 March 2014 02:59:20PM 1 point [-]

Think of Steve Jobs vs. the business school professor who wrote a book about entrepreneurship.

Comment author: elharo 01 March 2014 08:09:48PM 5 points [-]

The question presupposes a classical view of "rational argument," namely the use of classical logic (e.g., mathematical logic) in the service of self-interest.

But that is not how real rationality works. Political argument starts with moral framing - what is assumed to be right, not wrong or morally irrelevant. Conservatives and liberals differ on what is right. Real rational argument uses the logic of frames and metaphors, as well as the use of emotion in setting goals. For example, poor conservatives may care more about their moral identity as conservatives than about their financial self-interest. This is not "irrational;" it is a matter of what is most important to a given individual — moral identity or financial self-interest.

George Lakoff Progressives Need to Use Language That Reflects Moral Values

Comment author: hairyfigment 01 March 2014 08:26:28PM 23 points [-]

"He keeps saying, you can run, but you can't hide. Since when do we take advice from this guy?"

You got a really good point there, Rick. I mean, if the truth was that we could hide, it's not like he would just give us that information.

  • Rick and Morty.
Comment author: NancyLebovitz 11 March 2014 04:48:05PM 9 points [-]

The other thing is that he probably can't know whether you can hide.

Comment author: AspiringRationalist 01 March 2014 10:10:34PM 42 points [-]

As the world becomes more addictive, the two senses in which one can live a normal life will be driven ever further apart. One sense of "normal" is statistically normal: what everyone else does. The other is the sense we mean when we talk about the normal operating range of a piece of machinery: what works best.

These two senses are already quite far apart. Already someone trying to live well would seem eccentrically abstemious in most of the US. That phenomenon is only going to become more pronounced. You can probably take it as a rule of thumb from now on that if people don't think you're weird, you're living badly.

-- Paul Graham, The Acceleration of Addictiveness

Comment author: Torello 02 March 2014 06:09:13PM 2 points [-]

Thank you for linking to the piece where the quote was drawn. Great article!

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 02 March 2014 07:32:49PM 1 point [-]

BTW, here is Eliezer's article on the same topic.

Comment author: Stabilizer 02 March 2014 12:11:14AM 27 points [-]

Procrastination is the thief of compound interest.

-Venkatesh Rao

Comment author: ChristianKl 03 March 2014 12:17:16PM *  2 points [-]

You can never be loved for your successes-only for your vulnerabilities. People may be attracted to you and may admire you if you are a great success. They may also resent and envy you. But they can never love you for your success.

David Burns in "The feeling good handbook" (The book has been shown to be effective at improving the condition of depressive people in controlled trials) Page 126

Comment author: Stabilizer 04 March 2014 12:32:59AM 3 points [-]

Upvoted. I don't know if this is true; indeed, I suspect it is definitely partially false. But, I don't think it is entirely false. It's interesting and has made me think.

Comment author: ChristianKl 04 March 2014 02:16:18PM 0 points [-]

It's the position of someone at the heart of the evidence based framework of Cognitive Behavior Therapy.

Even if you happen to disagree and think you know better how emotions work than the people with the credentials I think it's still useful to know where you differ with them.

I read David Burns book because it's the book that's most recommended on LW when it comes to dealing with emotions.

I'm not quoting someone from a New Age background but someone who actually is trying to teach people to get rid of irrational beliefs by recognizing their mental distortions.

Comment author: Desrtopa 06 March 2014 03:05:11PM *  0 points [-]

It's the position of someone at the heart of the evidence based framework of Cognitive Behavior Therapy.

According to the research summarized by Yvain, Cognitive Bahvioral Therapy does not seem to be more strongly supported as effective than Freudian psychoanalysis. Rather, it conducted the research which demonstrated its effectiveness relative to placebo earlier than other types of therapy, and thereby gained a reputation as evidence-based.

Comment author: ChristianKl 06 March 2014 03:25:57PM 0 points [-]

Not quite.

In Cognitive Behavior Therapy, there a strong focus on measuring the level of depression of the person who's coming to the sessions. Cognitive Therapist now tried different approaches of treating depression and believe in making decisions based on what interventions succeed in reducing the scores of someones level of depression.

A Freudian would tell you, that he doesn't really care about the score but that he cares that the person just feels better and succeeds in dealing with his childhood traumas.

David Burns wants that every patients fill out a questionnaire at every session that measures the amount of depression the person has at that time. He wants that psychologists who don't succeed in reducing the scores of their clients have no excuse because they are faced with hard numbers.

Given that's Burns approach of looking at the world there going to be less inferential difference in getting Burn understood be LessWrongers than if I would pick someone who could also produce results but who doesn't really care about gathering academic evidence for what works.

Don't confuse people who produce results by looking at published evidence and who base their practice on that evidence with people who just produce results.

Comment author: Desrtopa 06 March 2014 06:45:36PM 3 points [-]

In Cognitive Behavior Therapy, there a strong focus on measuring the level of depression of the person who's coming to the sessions. Cognitive Therapist now tried different approaches of treating depression and believe in making decisions based on what interventions succeed in reducing the scores of someones level of depression.

A Freudian would tell you, that he doesn't really care about the score but that he cares that the person just feels better and succeeds in dealing with his childhood traumas.

The gist of the research though, is that while historically Freudian therapists have taken this approach, more recently many Freudian therapists have actually started performing the same sort of research on the effects of their therapy that Cognitive Behavioral Therapists have, and received essentially the same results. It's not that there isn't evidence to support Cognitive Behavioral Therapy working, but rather, more recent evidence seems to suggest that when they do gather the relevant data, other forms of therapy appear to work equally well. So it appears that the things about Cognitive Behavioral Therapy that actually work are not things that are specific to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, but rather, are general qualities of therapy provided by a trained practitioner.

Comment author: ChristianKl 07 March 2014 12:21:03AM -2 points [-]

The gist of the research though, is that while historically Freudian therapists have taken this approach, more recently many Freudian therapists have actually started performing the same sort of research on the effects of their therapy that Cognitive Behavioral Therapists have, and received essentially the same results.

No, the average Freudian therapist doesn't focus on the measurement on a scale but rather takes a more holistic approach.

Yes, you can run a controlled test where you pit Freudian therapists against Cognitive Behavioral Therapists and not find any difference in efficiency but that doesn't mean that both classes value published evidence and an improvement on a numerical score the same way.

Comment author: Desrtopa 07 March 2014 12:46:49AM 0 points [-]

"Valuing published evidence" doesn't necessarily equate to having a more correct theoretical framework though. Reality doesn't grade for sentiment.

Cognitive behavioral therapists might on average be more relatable to Less Wrong members than Freudian therapists, but that doesn't mean that prescriptions rooted in a cognitive behavioral model of the human mind are more likely to be correct or helpful.

Comment author: ChristianKl 07 March 2014 12:54:45AM -2 points [-]

Cognitive behavioral therapists might on average be more relatable to Less Wrong members than Freudian therapists, but that doesn't mean that prescriptions rooted in a cognitive behavioral model of the human mind are more likely to be correct or helpful.

Yes. But if even the theory that most likely to be relatable to Less Wrong members get's voted down because the whole emotion business is just to strange, that's sad.

Comment author: ChristianKl 03 March 2014 12:17:33PM *  4 points [-]

Genuine self-esteem is based on humility and an acceptance of your shortcomings.

David Burns in "The feeling good handbook" (The book has been shown to be effective at improving the condition of depressive people in controlled trials) Page 69

Comment author: ChristianKl 03 March 2014 12:18:03PM *  7 points [-]

If you try too hard to fight a problem within yourself or someone else, the very act of fighting will often create resistance. Sometimes when you accept the problem and stop trying so hard, things will suddenly begin to change.

David Burns in "The feeling good handbook" about the "acceptance paradox" (The book has been shown to be effective at improving the condition of depressive people in controlled trials) Page 67

Comment author: William_Quixote 04 March 2014 01:09:54AM 1 point [-]

I feel like the claim made about the source is strong enough that it should have a link to a study.

Comment author: ChristianKl 04 March 2014 01:46:30PM 0 points [-]

It has sort of. It is in the forward of the recent edition of the book.

In general the book is well known on LW and I'm just reiterating a fact that's already established by other people. At the moment the LW search finds 431 hits for the search "feeling good handbook".

Comment author: ChristianKl 03 March 2014 12:19:12PM 9 points [-]

The language you use to talk about something influences the way you think about it. If the chemistry you’re talking about is truly something new, then a fight over terminology may be quite an important part of getting to understand that chemistry better.

Jay A. Labinger

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 04 March 2014 01:56:47AM -2 points [-]

Most fail to understand in the medical and socieconomic domains that treatment should never be equivalent to silencing symptoms.

Nassim Taleb

Comment author: CronoDAS 04 March 2014 03:07:22AM 25 points [-]

It will be said that, while a little leisure is pleasant, men would not know how to fill their days if they had only four hours of work out of the twenty-four. In so far as this is true in the modern world, it is a condemnation of our civilization; it would not have been true at any earlier period. There was formerly a capacity for light-heartedness and play which has been to some extent inhibited by the cult of efficiency. The modern man thinks that everything ought to be done for the sake of something else, and never for its own sake. Serious-minded persons, for example, are continually condemning the habit of going to the cinema, and telling us that it leads the young into crime. But all the work that goes to producing a cinema is respectable, because it is work, and because it brings a money profit. The notion that the desirable activities are those that bring a profit has made everything topsy-turvy. The butcher who provides you with meat and the baker who provides you with bread are praiseworthy, because they are making money; but when you enjoy the food they have provided, you are merely frivolous, unless you eat only to get strength for your work. Broadly speaking, it is held that getting money is good and spending money is bad. Seeing that they are two sides of one transaction, this is absurd; one might as well maintain that keys are good, but keyholes are bad. Whatever merit there may be in the production of goods must be entirely derivative from the advantage to be obtained by consuming them. The individual, in our society, works for profit; but the social purpose of his work lies in the consumption of what he produces. It is this divorce between the individual and the social purpose of production that makes it so difficult for men to think clearly in a world in which profit-making is the incentive to industry. We think too much of production, and too little of consumption. One result is that we attach too little importance to enjoyment and simple happiness, and that we do not judge production by the pleasure that it gives to the consumer.

-- Bertrand Russell, In Praise of Idleness

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 05 March 2014 02:10:34PM 0 points [-]

The problem with spending money -- and consumption in general -- is the opportunity cost. If by doing something you are not maximizing some value, then it would be better if you did.

The same criticism could be also made about production: if you work hard and make profit by creating value, but by doing something else you could create even more value, then it would be better if you did the other thing.

Perhaps the difference is that on the production side people at least try to maximize (of course with all the human irrationality involved), but on the consumption side we often forget to think about it. So we need to be reminded there more.

Comment author: Lumifer 05 March 2014 04:04:30PM 2 points [-]

If by doing something you are not maximizing some value, then it would be better if you did.

Not some value -- a lot of people are maximizing the wrong values.

One of the reasons why this whole thing is so complicated is that in reality people very rarely optimize for a single value. They optimize for a set of values which usually isn't too coherent and the weights for these values tend to fluctuate...

Comment author: bbleeker 04 March 2014 12:54:48PM *  17 points [-]

The world always makes the assumption that the exposure of an error is identical with the discovery of truth - that the error and truth are simply opposite. They are nothing of the sort. What the world turns to, when it is cured on one error, is usually simply another error, and maybe one worse than the first one.

--H. L. Mencken

Comment author: RichardKennaway 04 March 2014 01:16:11PM 13 points [-]

Related:

Just because you no longer believe a lie, does not mean you now know the truth.

Comment author: Stefan_Schubert 04 March 2014 04:22:24PM *  -2 points [-]

Wittgenstein's appeal lies in the fact that he provides a strange kind of vindication of romanticism, of conceptual Gemeinschaft, of custom-based concepts rather than statute-seeking Reform, and that he does so through a very general theory of meaning, rather than from the premisses habitually used for this purpose. Because there is no unique formal notation valid for all speech, each and every culture is vindicated. One never knew that could be done - and so quickly too! It is that above all which endows his philosophy with such a capacity to attract and to repel. His mystique of consensual custom denies that anything can sit in judgment of our concepts, that some may be more rational and others less so. So all of them are in order and have nothing to fear from philosophy, as indeed he insists. This is a fairly mild form of irrationalism, invoking no fierce dark Gods, merely a consensual community. It is the Soft Porn of Irrationalism.

Ernest Gellner

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 05 March 2014 02:55:41AM 14 points [-]

If everybody thinks you're crazy, they might have a point. But if nobody thinks you're crazy, you have surrendered to herd consensus and are being far too timid in what you allow yourself to think and say in public.

Eric Raymound

Comment author: elharo 05 March 2014 01:24:22PM 8 points [-]

I agree with this. It's also a good quote. However there is an important caveat. It is possible to get caught-up in an echo chamber of equally crazy people. For extreme examples, consider the Lyndon Larouche crowd, Scientology, or the latest resurgence of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. So just because not everybody believes you're crazy, does not imply you are in fact, not crazy.

Comment author: nabeelqu 05 March 2014 10:56:01AM *  45 points [-]

As burglars, they used some unusual techniques...During their casing, they had noticed that the interior door that opened to the draft board office was always locked. There was no padlock to replace...The break-in technique they settled on at that office must be unique in the annals of burglary. Several hours before the burglary was to take place, one of them wrote a note and tacked it to the door they wanted to enter: "Please don't lock this door tonight." Sure enough, when the burglars arrived that night, someone had obediently left the door unlocked. The burglars entered the office with ease, stole the Selective Service records, and left. They were so pleased with themselves that one of them proposed leaving a thank-you note on the door. More cautious minds prevailed. Miss Manners be damned, they did not leave a note.

-- Betty Medsger

Comment author: Stabilizer 10 March 2014 10:21:20PM 2 points [-]

Tears in my eyes... awesome beyond words. The fact that this wasn't fictional makes it brilliant. The fact that the burglars were acting against an over-reaching institution is just icing on the cake. It's been sometime since I heard a story that warmed my heart so much.

Comment author: elharo 05 March 2014 01:18:43PM -1 points [-]

Because we must deal with the unknown, whose nature is by definition speculative and outside the flowing chain of language, whatever we make of it will be no more than probability and no less than error. The awareness of possible error in speculation and of a continued speculation regardless of error is an event in the history of modern rationalism whose importance, I think, cannot be overemphasized. This is to some extent the subject of Frank Kermode's Sense of an Ending, a book whose justifiable bias the connection between literature and the modes of fictional thought in a general sense. Nevertheless, the subject of how and when we become certain that what we are doing is quite possibly wrong but a least a beginning has to be studied in its full historical and intellectual richness."

--Edward Said, Beginnings, Intention and Method, p. 75, 1985

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 12 March 2014 02:05:46AM 1 point [-]

The first sentence seems excellent to me, and probably true of a great many things. I have trouble focusing on the rest, and more trouble making sense out of it. Anyone care to take a crack at a summary?

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 06 March 2014 05:06:09PM 23 points [-]

Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn’t think of doctrines as primarily ‘true’ or ‘false’, but as ‘academic’ or ‘practical’, ‘outworn’ or ‘contemporary’, ‘conventional’ or ‘ruthless’. Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Don’t waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true! Make him think it is strong, or stark, or courageous— that it is the philosophy of the future. That’s the sort of thing he cares about.

-- C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

Comment author: Jiro 06 March 2014 10:07:32PM *  0 points [-]

While it is true that you shouldn't be a materialist just because it's fashionable, there's a fine line between saying "you shouldn't be a materialist just because it's fashionable" and "my opponents are just materialists because it's fashionable". The second is a straw man argument, and given that this is CS Lewis putting words in the mouth of Satan, I read this as the straw man argument. Needless to say, a straw man argument is not a good rationalist quote.

Comment author: Vaniver 06 March 2014 10:29:46PM 5 points [-]

there's a fine line between saying "you shouldn't be a materialist just because it's fashionable" and "my opponents are just materialists because it's fashionable".

If someone is a materialist just because it's fashionable, that's trouble. Lewis may be wrong on whether or not the Church is 'true,' but I don't think Lewis is wrong on calling out compartmentalization and inconsistency rather than thinking about whether or not doctrines are true or false.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 06 March 2014 11:00:11PM *  12 points [-]

The second is a straw man argument, and given that this is CS Lewis putting words in the mouth of Satan, I read this as the straw man argument.

That sounds to me like you're assuming that Lewis wrote the book so that he could put the devil to say strawmannish things, in order to mock the devil. Which is not the case at all - the demon writing the letters is much more similar to MoR!Quirrel, displaying a degree of rationality-mixed-with-cynicism which it uses to point out ways by which the lives of humans can be made miserable, or by which humans make their own lives miserable. Much of it can be read as a treatise on various biases and cognitive mistakes to avoid, made more compelling by them being explained by someone who wants those mistakes to be exploited for actively harming people.

Comment author: Jiro 07 March 2014 09:53:24AM *  0 points [-]

I read that quote as saying that the Devil (or a demon) deceives people by making them believe those things, not that the Devil believes these things himself. That's how demons behave, they lie to people. This one lies to people about why one should be a materialist and the people fall for it. The point is not to mock the demon, who in the quote is acting as a liar rather than a materialist, but to mock materialists themselves by implying that they are materialists for spurious reasons.

Of course, Lewis has plausible deniability. One can always claim he's not attributing anything to materialists in general--you're supposed to infer that; it's not actually stated.

Edit: Also, remember when Lewis wrote that. 1942 wasn't like today, when it's possible to say you don't believe in the supernatural and (if you live in the right area) not suffer too many consequences except not ever being able to run for political office. Any materialist at the time who claimed he was courageous could easily be just responding to persecution, not claiming that that was his reason for being a materialist. Mocking materialists for that would be like mocking gay pride parades today on the grounds that pride is a sin and a form of arrogance--pride in a vacuum is, but pride in response to someone telling you you're shameful isn't.

Comment author: CCC 07 March 2014 10:40:21AM 18 points [-]

The demon is not just lying at random - the demon is lying with the purpose of getting a certain reaction (in this case, getting the human to subscribe to the philosophy of materialism). The original quote is advice on how to use the human's cognitive biases against him, in order to better achieve that goal.

The point of the quote isn't materialism. That could be replaced with any other philosophy, quite easily. The point of the quote is that, for many people, subscribing to a philosophy isn't about whether that philosophy is true at all; it's more about whether that philosophy is popular, or cool, or daring.

The point isn't to mock the demon, or the materialist. The point is to highlight a common human cognitive mistake.

Comment author: Salemicus 07 March 2014 11:56:44AM 6 points [-]

Also, remember when Lewis wrote that. 1942 wasn't like today... Any materialist at the time who claimed he was courageous could easily be just responding to persecution, not claiming that that was his reason for being a materialist.

Your understanding of 1942 is amazingly flawed. No-one in the developed world was persecuted for being a materialist at that time, but plenty were for their religion. Moreover, the fashionable belief at the time was dialectical materialism, and part of the claim made for it, by dialectical materialists themselves, was that it was the philosophy of the future.

Comment author: Jiro 07 March 2014 03:34:13PM *  7 points [-]

Well, my first thought was Bertrand Russell being fired from CUNY, which was around 1940, although that was mostly because of his beliefs about sex (which are still directly related to his disbelief in religion). Religion classes in public schools were legal until 1948, and compulsory school prayer was legal until 1963. "In God We Trust" was declared the national motto of the US in 1956.

Comment author: DanArmak 09 March 2014 11:50:56AM 0 points [-]

Lewis' point of reference is the UK, not the US. I don't know how much that changes the picture.

Comment author: Jiro 09 March 2014 04:10:19PM 0 points [-]

I think the US counts as part of "the developed world", however.

Comment author: Salemicus 09 March 2014 11:18:38PM -1 points [-]

So given that none of these are examples of people being persecuted for their materialism, can I take it that you agree?

Comment author: DanArmak 09 March 2014 11:55:43AM 5 points [-]

mock materialists themselves by implying that they are materialists for spurious reasons.

I don't think he was mocking, but I do think he was correct. I claim that it's perfectly true that most materialists today are materialists for spurious, non-object-level reasons. The same goes for all other widespread philosophies. People in general are biased and also don't care about philosophical truth much.

Comment author: ChristianKl 09 March 2014 01:15:51PM 8 points [-]

I think the non-object-level reasons that the devil names are interesting.

I think few new atheists care about whether atheism is strong or courageous. They rather care about the fact that it's what the intelligent people believe and they also want to be intelligent.

Comment author: Jiro 09 March 2014 04:14:24PM 4 points [-]

I suspect that most members of the Democratic Party are Democrats for spurious reasons too. But a Republican who lists a bunch of human foibles and writes a scenario that specifically names Democrats as being subject to them is probably attacking Democrats, at least in passing, not just attacking human beings.

Comment author: ChristianKl 09 March 2014 04:58:40PM *  1 point [-]

Don't let yourself be mindkilled. Arguments aren't soldiers.

Focus on the true things you can say about the the world.

Comment author: Jiro 10 March 2014 08:39:46PM *  2 points [-]

I am tempted to reply to this with "May the Force be with you", but instead I'll ask "just what are you trying to say?" You just gave me a reply which consists entirely of slogans, with no hint as to how you think they apply.

Comment author: ChristianKl 10 March 2014 09:57:19PM 1 point [-]

You just gave me a reply which consists entirely of slogans, with no hint as to how you think they apply.

I think the argument I made was fairly obvious, but let me break it down.

You care about who's attacking whom. If you are in that mindset arguments are soldiers. You treat the argument that there are atheists who are atheists because it's cool to be an atheist as a foreign soldier that has to be fought. A foreign soldier that doesn't play according to the rules.

Those considerations don't matter if you want to decide whether there are atheists who are motivated by the coolness of being an atheist. If you care about truth, you want to have true beliefs about how much atheists are motivated by the coolness factor of atheism. It doesn't matter for this discussion whether that argument is fair. What matters is whether it's true.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 11 March 2014 12:03:55PM *  1 point [-]

See filtered evidence. It is completely possible to mislead people by giving them only true information... but only those pieces of information which support the conclusion you want them to make.

If you had a perfect superhuman intelligence, perhaps you could give them dozen information about why X is wrong, a zero information about why Y is wrong, and yet the superintelligence might conclude: "Both X and Y are human political sides, so I will just take this generally as an evidence that humans are often wrong, especially when discussing politics. Because humans are so often wrong, it is very likely that the human who is giving this information to me is blind to the flaws of one side (which in this specific case happens to be Y), so all this information is only a very weak evidence for X being worse than Y."

But humans don't reason like this. Give them dozen information about why X is wrong, and zero information about why Y is wrong; in the next chapter give them dozen information about why Y is good and zero information about why X is good... and they will consider this a strong evidence that X is worse than Y. -- And Lewis most likely understands this.

Comment author: ChristianKl 11 March 2014 01:39:51PM 1 point [-]

I doubt that any LW member would take all of his information about the value of atheism from Lewis. If you let yourself convince that atheism is wrong by reading Lewis than your belief in atheism was very weak in the first place.

I have a hard time imagine pushing anyone in LW into a crisis of faith about atheism in which we wouldn't come out with better belief system than he started. If someone discovers that he actually follows in atheism because it's cool and works through his issues, he might end up in following atheism for better reasons.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 11 March 2014 04:00:40AM -1 points [-]

pride is a sin and a form of arrogance--pride in a vacuum is, but pride in response to someone telling you you're shameful isn't.

Being proud of something that is actually shameful strikes me as particularly sinful.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 11 March 2014 03:39:40PM 1 point [-]

How about being ashamed of something that is actually prideworthy?

Comment author: hairyfigment 07 March 2014 06:38:53PM 5 points [-]

This is better than the other Screwtape quote, but - given the example of Ayn Rand - I think Lewis still gets causality backwards where smart Marxists were concerned. I think they started by being right about God and "materialism" when most people were insistently wrong (or didn't care about object-level truth.) This gave them an inflated view of their own intelligence and the explanatory power of Marxism.

Comment author: JQuinton 13 March 2014 05:00:56PM *  2 points [-]

I admit, I get horribly mind-killed whenever I realize I'm reading something by CS Lewis, especially anything from The Screwtape Letters. That's because years ago, the arguments in this book were used against me by a girl I was dating as a means to end our relationship (me being non-religious), who herself was convinced by her friends and family that we should break up.

That said, I was able to read this and appreciate it more clearly if I substituted the quote like so:

Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the [bad guys]. Don’t waste time trying to make him think that [good guys' philosophy] is true! Make him think it is strong, or stark, or courageous— that it is the philosophy of the future. That’s the sort of thing he cares about.

If we are attempting to spread good rationality around, would it be efficient to not try to convince people that rationality was "true", but instead attempt to promote good rationality by saying that rationality is "strong, stark, or courageous -- that it is the philosophy of the future"?

Comment author: SaidAchmiz 13 March 2014 06:30:25PM *  4 points [-]

So you propose to spread rationality by encouraging irrationality?

Even assuming that this will work — that is, not just get people to buy into rationality (that part is simple) but actually become more rational, after this initial dose of irrational motivation — what do you suggest we do when our new recruits turn around and go "Hey, wait a tick; you guys got me into this through blatantly irrational arguments! You cynically and self-servingly pandered to my previously-held biases to get me on your side! You tricked me, you bastards!"? Grin and say "worked, didn't it"?

Comment author: JQuinton 13 March 2014 09:28:31PM -2 points [-]

So you propose to spread rationality by encouraging irrationality?

That seems to be what the quote is arguing.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 06 March 2014 05:09:55PM 8 points [-]

When he goes inside [the church], he sees the local grocer with rather an oily expression on his face bustling up to offer him one shiny little book containing a liturgy which neither of them understands, and one shabby little book containing corrupt texts of a number of religious lyrics, mostly bad, and in very small print. When he gets to his pew and looks round him he sees just that selection of his neighbours whom he has hitherto avoided. You want to lean pretty heavily on those neighbours. Make his mind flit to and fro between an expression like ‘the body of Christ’ and the actual faces in the next pew. It matters very little, of course, what kind of people that next pew really contains. You may know one of them to be a great warrior on the Enemy’s side. No matter. Your patient, thanks to Our Father Below, is a fool. Provided that any of those neighbours sing out of tune, or have boots that squeak, or double chins, or odd clothes, the patient will quite easily believe that their religion must therefore be somehow ridiculous.

-- C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

Comment author: TsviBT 09 March 2014 05:08:18AM 14 points [-]

The secret of life is: This is not a drill.

-The Wise Man in Darkside, a radio play by Tom Stoppard

Comment author: Stabilizer 09 March 2014 08:08:37AM 14 points [-]

This is not a drill. Therefore, make sure you have drills for the really important bits.

Comment author: [deleted] 09 March 2014 06:56:34PM 3 points [-]

And when someone tries to be the wall the stands in your way, you'll have something that will open a hole in them every time: your drill.

(In a related matter, if there's a wall in your way, smash it down. If there isn't a path, carve one yourself.)

Comment author: Manfred 10 March 2014 05:38:45AM *  24 points [-]

And bits for the really important drills.

Comment author: Weedlayer 10 March 2014 06:55:56AM *  17 points [-]

This quote reminded me of a quote from an anime called Kaiji, albeit your quote is much more succinct.

Normally, those people would never wake up from their fantasy worlds. They live meaningless lives. They waste their precious days over nothing. No matter how old they get, they'll continue to say, "My real life hasn't started yet. The real me is still asleep, so that's why my life is such garbage." They continue to tell themselves that. They continue. And they age. Then die. And on their deathbeds, they will finally realize: the life they lived was the real thing. People don't live provisional lives, nor do they die provisional deaths. That's a simple fact! The problem... is whether they realize that simple fact.

  • Yukio Tonegawa in Kaiji
Comment author: chaosmage 12 March 2014 05:53:30PM *  2 points [-]

Funny. I came up with almost the exact same line:

One future will be happening
and we must choose: Which will
we someday be inhabiting?
So this is not a drill.

Comment author: khafra 10 March 2014 03:32:09PM 6 points [-]

... the controlling factor, the root cause, of risk is dependence, particularly dependence on the expectation of stable system state. Yet the more technologic the society becomes, the greater the dynamic range of possible failures. When you live in a cave, starvation, predators, disease, and lightning are about the full range of failures that end life as you know it and you are well familiar with each of them. When you live in a technologic society where everybody and everything is optimized in some way akin to just-in-time delivery, the dynamic range of failures is incomprehensibly larger and largely incomprehensible.

-- Dan Geer

(rationality applicability: antifragility & disjunctive prediction vs. optimization for conjunctive prediction)

Comment author: Martin-2 10 March 2014 07:18:54PM *  2 points [-]

I can't do anything on purpose.

  • Professor Utonium, realizing he has a problem
Comment author: shminux 10 March 2014 07:46:24PM *  6 points [-]

Fault is a backward-looking concept: it focuses on deviations between the bad present and some desired past. Ability is forward-looking: it focuses on the deviation between some sub-optimal present and a desired future.

Anonymous commenter

Comment author: [deleted] 10 March 2014 08:53:54PM 16 points [-]

"Luck plays a large role in every story of success; it is almost always easy to identify a small change in the story that would have turned a remarkable achievement into a mediocre outcome." - Daniel Kahneman

Comment author: [deleted] 10 March 2014 08:54:26PM 19 points [-]

"This is the essence of intuitive heuristics: when faced with a difficult question, we often answer an easier one instead, usually without noticing the substitution." - Daniel Kahneman

Comment author: [deleted] 10 March 2014 08:55:04PM 10 points [-]

"Intelligence is not only the ability to reason; it is also the ability to find relevant material in memory and to deploy attention when needed." - Daniel Kahneman

Comment author: [deleted] 10 March 2014 08:56:31PM -1 points [-]

"The fragilista falls for the Soviet-Harvard delusion, the (unscientific) overestimation of the reach of scientific knowledge. Because of such delusion, he is what is called a naive rationalist, a rationalizer, or sometimes just a rationalist, in the sense that he believes that the reasons behind things are automatically accessible to him. And let us not confuse rationalizing with rational—the two are almost always exact opposites. Outside of physics, and generally in complex domains, the reasons behind things have had a tendency to make themselves less obvious to us, and even less to the fragilista." - Nassim Taleb

Comment author: [deleted] 10 March 2014 08:57:46PM 30 points [-]

"Consider the people who routinely disagree with you. See how confident they look while being dead wrong? That’s exactly how you look to them." - Scott Adams

Comment author: fezziwig 10 March 2014 10:14:28PM *  9 points [-]

Quotes from the Screwtape Letters have not been terribly well-received in this thread. So, perversely, I decided I had to take a turn:

Do what you will, there is going to be some benevolence, as well as some malice, in your patient's soul. The great thing is to direct the malice to his immediate neighbours whom he meets every day and to thrust his benevolence out to the remote circumference, to people he does not know. The malice thus becomes wholly real and the benevolence largely imaginary. There is no good at all in inflaming his hatred of Germans if, at the same time, a pernicious habit of charity is growing up between him and his mother, his employer, and the man he meets in the train. Think of your man as a series of concentric circles, his will being the innermost, his intellect coming next, and finally his fantasy...you must keep on shoving all the virtues outward till they are finally located in the circle of fantasy, and all the desirable qualities inward into the Will. It is only in so far as they reach the will and are there embodied in habits that the virtues are really fatal to us.

-- The demon Screwtape, on how best to tempt a human being to destruction.

The existence of souls notwithstanding, Screwtape is clearly right: if you are charitable to almost everybody--except for those your see every day!--then you are not practicing the virtue of charity and are ill-served to imagine otherwise. You cannot fantasize good mental habits into being; they must be acted upon.

Comment author: hairyfigment 11 March 2014 12:50:44AM 0 points [-]

Why the Hell would I want to practice the virtue of charity? If anything, I want to help people. And hating people from a foreign country could be an excellent way to do damage!

Comment author: fubarobfusco 11 March 2014 03:14:15AM -1 points [-]

Why the Hell would I want to practice the virtue of charity?

To self-modify, perhaps?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 11 March 2014 03:57:27AM *  -1 points [-]

Why the Hell would I want to practice the virtue of charity? If anything, I want to help people.

Except, with that attitude you won't. You'll sit around telling yourself how virtuous you are for liking people you've never met, while being a misanthrope to everyone you personally know. Furthermore, if (or when) you mean one of the foreign people you supposedly love, you'll wind up being a misanthrope to them as well.

And hating people from a foreign country could be an excellent way to do damage!

Really? How does you, personally, hating people from a foreign country do damage?

Comment author: hairyfigment 11 March 2014 04:37:36AM 3 points [-]

Furthermore, if (or when) you mean one of the foreign people you supposedly love, you'll wind up being a misanthrope to them as well.

And why would I care about that if my donations produce a giant net benefit? When did I even claim to love anyone?

Comment author: RowanE 13 March 2014 02:13:39PM -2 points [-]

If you don't love people, why would your utility function include a term for their wellbeing?

Comment author: hairyfigment 13 March 2014 03:13:17PM -1 points [-]

If Stalin didn't love his own people, why would he mildly prefer not to throw them at Hitler?

Comment author: fezziwig 11 March 2014 06:22:09PM 1 point [-]

I'm sorry, my original post was not quite precise. I meant charity in the sense of the Principle of Charity, not charitable contributions. If you prefer, substitute "kind" for "charitable"; it's not quite the same but illustrates the point just as well.

And hating people from a foreign country could be an excellent way to do damage!

Keep in mind, we're talking about the damage you do to yourself. Hating people you've never met is not a very efficient way to damage yourself. Much better is to hate people you know intimately and see every day. That way you can practice your vices efficiently, and will have as many opportunities as possible to act them out.

Comment author: khafra 13 March 2014 01:54:36PM 4 points [-]

Who does more good with their life--the person who contributes a large amount of money to efficient charities while avoiding the people nearby, or the person who ignores anyone more than 100 miles away while being nice to his mother, his employer, and the man he meets in the train?

Comment author: fezziwig 13 March 2014 03:07:36PM 0 points [-]

Yeah, that's been confusing: I meant this principle of charity.

Comment author: Apprentice 11 March 2014 11:08:54PM 2 points [-]

Truth has her throne on the shadowy back of doubt.

-- Sri Aurobindo (1872-1950), Savitri - A Legend and a Symbol

Comment author: scav 12 March 2014 04:33:40PM 5 points [-]

"I have frequently detected myself in such kind of mistakes," said Elinor, "in a total misapprehension of character in some point or other: fancying people so much more gay or grave, or ingenious or stupid than they really are, and I can hardly tell why or in what the deception originated. Sometimes one is guided by what they say of themselves, and very frequently by what other people say of them, without giving oneself time to deliberate and judge."

Jane Austen, Sense and Sensibility

Comment author: chaosmage 12 March 2014 05:35:17PM 2 points [-]

I think those mistakes usually happen for an entirely different reason. New people remind us of ones we've already met, and we unconsciously "fill in the blanks" in what we know about the new person with what we know about person we know, or some kind of average-ish judgement about the group of comparable people we know.

Comment author: Protagoras 12 March 2014 06:08:13PM 2 points [-]

It's pretty remarkable to detect yourself in that kind of mistake; most people are very good at finding confirming evidence for whatever judgments they've made about people, and ignoring any contrary indications.

Comment author: Salemicus 12 March 2014 06:25:05PM 4 points [-]

Yes, this is a good point - we generally don't realise that we are (self-)deceived, so we can't even begin to think about where we went wrong.

Of course, Elinor Dashwood is something of an authorial stand-in, so it's not really surprising that she's incredibly wise and perspicacious like that.

Comment author: WalterL 12 March 2014 07:21:09PM 6 points [-]

Bernard and Sir Humphrey are British government functionaries in the comedy show 'Yes Minister'

Bernard: If it's our job to carry out government policies, shouldn't we believe in them?

Sir Humphrey: Oh, what an extraordinary idea! I have served 11 governments in the past 30 years. If I'd believed in all their policies, I'd have been passionately committed to keeping out of the Common Market, and passionately committed to joining it. I'd have been utterly convinced of the rightness of nationalising steel and of denationalising it and renationalising it. Capital punishment? I'd have been a fervent retentionist and an ardent abolitionist. I'd have been a Keynesian and a Friedmanite, a grammar school preserver and destroyer, a nationalisation freak and a privatisation maniac, but above all, I would have been a stark-staring raving schizophrenic!

Comment author: lukeprog 12 March 2014 08:48:02PM 26 points [-]

If you stick me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru, you’ll find out how much this talent is going to produce in the wrong kind of soil.

Warren Buffett

Comment author: sallym 13 March 2014 08:38:49AM 1 point [-]

"As I fear not a child with a weapon he cannot lift, I will never fear the mind of a man who does not think.’”

Words of Radiance, Brandon Sanderson, page 795

Comment author: elharo 13 March 2014 11:08:10AM 16 points [-]

May I make a general request to people posting quotes? Please include not just the author's name but sufficient information to enable a reader to find the relevant quote. This doesn't necessarily have to be full MLA format; but a title, journal or book name if from a print source, page number or URL, and date would be helpful. Hyperlinked URLs are excellent if available but do not substitute for the rest of this information since these threads will likely outlive the location of some of the sources.

Doing so enables the reader not just to get a brief hit of rationality but to say, "Gee, that's interesting. I'd like to learn more," and read further in the source.

In fact, why don't we add a fifth bullet point to the header:

  • Provide sufficient information (URL, title, date, page number, etc.) to enable a reader to find the original source of the quote
Comment author: JQuinton 13 March 2014 03:38:10PM 5 points [-]

Certainty is the most dangerous emotion a human being can feel in politics and religion. Certainty stops all outside thought or reason. It closes the door and is a metaphorical spit in the face of anyone who disagrees. Changing one’s mind is the essence of critical thinking.

Edwin Lyngar at Salon

Comment author: hairyfigment 13 March 2014 08:51:11PM *  18 points [-]

A: Maybe an Air Nomad Avatar will understand where I'm coming from...(simulates Yangchen)...

Y: Avatar Aang, I know that you are a gentle spirit. And the monks have taught you well. But this isn't about you. This is about the world.

A: But the monks taught me I had to detach myself from the world so my spirit could be free!

Y: ...Here is my wisdom for you: selfless duty calls for you to sacrifice your own spiritual needs, and do whatever it takes to protect the world.

  • Avatar: The last airbender