lisper comments on Is Spirituality Irrational? - Less Wrong

5 Post author: lisper 09 February 2016 01:42AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (429)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: lisper 16 February 2016 07:16:46PM 0 points [-]

Being stupid or ugly is not quite the same as being color-blind or spirituality-blind because stupidity and ugliness have a more direct impact on your reproductive fitness,

Comment author: gjm 16 February 2016 11:05:24PM 1 point [-]

not quite the same

Of course it's not quite the same. Neither is being stupid quite the same as being ugly. But do you really think a thing is only a real insult if it's about something that directly impacts your reproductive fitness? That seems a very odd idea to me. (And I question whether being intelligent -- as opposed to unintelligent, rather than outright stupid -- is a net benefit to reproductive fitness; I would guess that typical reproductive fitness is no worse at IQ 100 than at IQ 140. If you think "unintelligent" implies stupider than that, feel free to pretend I said "not especially intelligent" instead of "unintelligent".)

Comment author: Conscience 13 April 2016 11:54:10AM 0 points [-]

And because stupidity have more direct impact on IQ score, uglyness on actor profession opportunities, color-blind on painter options and spirituality-blindness on inner feeling of well-being perhaps?

Comment author: chaosmage 13 April 2016 01:53:03PM *  0 points [-]

If we're being very charitable, spirituality-blindness might mean something like "low trait absorption)" which would imply a reduced ability to benefit from placebo effects.

edit: Sorry, I didn't figure out how to make a link that includes a closing bracket work in this comment syntax.

Comment author: gjm 13 April 2016 04:16:18PM *  1 point [-]

I didn't figure out how to make a link that includes a closing bracket work

Replacing it with %29 will do. I'm not sure whether preceding it with a backslash does. Let's see.

URL-encoding with percent signs: trait absorption.

Backslashes on parentheses:trait absorption.

Looks like they both work.