= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
atucker comments on Q: What has Rationality Done for You? - 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 (88)
Integrate your utility over time. There are plenty of cheap (in terms of future utility) things that you can do now to enjoy yourself.
Like, eating healthy feels nice and keeps you in better shape for getting more utility. You should do it. Friends help you achieve future goals, and making and interacting with them is fun.
Reframe your "have to"s as "want to"s, if that's true.
I know, it would be best to enjoy the journey. But I am not that kind of person. I hate the eventual conclusion being made on LW. I am not saying that it is wrong, which is the problem. For me it only means that life sucks. If you can't stop caring then life sucks. For a few years after I was able to overcome religion I was pretty happy. I decided that nothing matters and I could just enjoy life, that I am not responsible. But that seems inconsistent as caring about others is caring about yourself. You also wouldn't run downstairs faster than necessary just because it is fun to run fast, it is not worth a fracture. And there begins the miserable journey where you never stop to enjoy because it is not worth it. It is like rationality is a parasite that is hijacking you and turns you into a consequentialist that maximizes only rational conduct.
Memetic "basilisk" issue: this subthread may be important:
This (combined with such as Roko's meltdown, as Nisan notes above) appears to be evidence of the possibility of LessWrong rationalism as memetic basilisk. (Thus suggesting the "basilisks" so far, e.g. the forbidden post, may have whatever's problematic in the LW memeplex as prerequisite, which is ... disconcerting.) As muflax notes:
What's a proper approach to use with those who literally can't handle that much truth?
Good question, though we might also want to take a careful look at whether there's something a little askew about the truth we're offering.
How can the folks who can't handle this stuff easily or perhaps at all be identified?
Rationality helps some depressed people and knocks others down farther.
Even if people at risk can be identified, I can't imagine a spoiler system which would keep all of them away from the material. On the other hand, maybe there are ways to warn off at least some people.
Well, that question is hardly unique to this forum.
My own preferred tactic depends on whether I consider someone capable of making an informed decision about what they are willing to try to handle -- that is, they have enough information, and they are capable of making such judgments, and they aren't massively distracted.
If I do, I tell them that there's something I'm reluctant to tell them, because I'm concerned that it will leave them worse off than my silence, but I'm leaving the choice up to them.
If not, then I keep quiet.
In a public forum, though, that tactic is unavailable.
It is common for brains to get hijacked by parasites:
Dan Dennett: Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes
Thanks for the link.
I note that when Dennett lists dangerous memes, he skips the one that gets the most people killed-- nationalism.
Dont despair, help will come :)