= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
geniuslevel20 comments on Power and difficulty - 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 (49)
Would someone be so kind as to direct me to a forum for epistemic rationalists?
[Who wants to talk to folks about important matters when they declare their willingness to deceive even themselves if it gets them what they want?]
This is not nice - could you try to find a more pleasant way to say this?
Also, LW does do epistemic rationality - but it's easier to say something useful and new about practical matters, so there are more posts of that kind.
Sure, it was snarky, but I thought it was funny.
It's a decent criticism of a decent chunk of LW, such that I don't have a great response to it. Check your accuracy at a meta-level to determine when to lie to yourself? That seems to be how this technique is used, but it feels like an unsatisfactory response.
I didn't exactly disagree with the content, right?
Part of the problem is just that writing something good about epistemic rationality is really hard, even if you stick to the 101 level - and, well, I don't really care about 101 anymore. But I have plenty of sympathy for those writing more practical posts.
No, you didn't.
And kudos (in the form of an upvote) to you for suggesting something to improve the niceness of rationalists -- as has been pointed out many times, that's something we should work on.
Yeah, instrumental rationality is (epistemically) easier -- on the writer as well as on the reader. Epistemic rationality requires rigor, which usually implies a lot of math. Instrumental rationality can be pretty successful with a few examples and a moderately useful analogy.