Lumifer comments on Why CFAR? The view from 2015 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (63)
Couple of notes...
What is that metric?
I think this is a dangerous path to take. If you stay on it, I suspect that soon enough you'll come to the conclusion that absence of appropriate "caring" is irrational and should be fixed. And from there it's only a short jump and a hop to declaring that just those people who share your value system are rational. That would be an... unfortunate position for you to find yourselves in.
I could very well be in the grip of the same problem (and I'd think the same if I was), but it looks like CFAR's methods are antifragile to this sort of failure. Especially considering the metaethical generality and well-executed distancing from LW in CFAR's content.
What does that mean?
book
Basically, systems that can improve from damage.
I know what the word means, kinda (Taleb isn't particularly coherent). I don't understand how CFAR's methods can improve from damage.
The question isn't about what the word means in general but in what way CFAR's methods are supposedly antifragile.