= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
apophenia comments on What topics would you like to see more of on LessWrong? - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (137)
So, let's call the thing I'm talking about "winning". It is EXTREMELY helpful although not logically necessary to think winning is a good idea in order to win. I'm talking about how to convince people of that helpful step, so they can, next, learn how to win, and finally, apply the knowledge and win.
Either you're talking about a rationality that doesn't consist of winning, or I'm hearing: "You cannot use the 'winning' part of their brain to convince them that it is good to win, because the 'winning' part of them already knows that, it's just not in charge." Why on earth should I restrict myself to some arbitrary 'winning' part of their brain, if such a thing existed, to convince them that it's good to win? That sounds silly.
Please let me know if I even make sense.
That is in fact what I'm saying. It's rational to use the dark arts to convince people to be rational, and irrational to try and use rationality to try and persuade people to be rational.
Yes it would be silly (ie. irrational) to think otherwise. However many otherwise rational people do think silly things.