= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lessdazed comments on In favour of a selective CEV initial dynamic - 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 (110)
Sure, inclusion is a thing that causes good and bad outcomes, and not necessarily net good outcomes.
Sure, but it's not logically necessary that it's a compromise, though it might be. It might be that the good outweighs the bad, or not, I'm not sure from where I stand.
Because I value inclusiveness more than zero, that's not necessarily true. It's probably true, or better yet, if one includes the best of the obvious Jerks with the rest of humanity, it's quite probably true. All else equal, I'd rather an individual be in than out, so if someone is all else equal worse than useless but only light ballast, having them is a net good.
It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Vilfredo Pareto!
Huh? Chewbacca?
I think your distinction is artificial, can you use it to show how an example question is a wrong question and another isn't, and show how your distinction sorts among those two types well?
Your Adam and and Eve reply made absolutely no sense and this question makes only slightly more. I cannot relate what you are saying to the disclaimer that you partially quote (except one way that implies you don't understand the subject matter - which I prefer not to assume). I cannot answer a question about what I am saying when I cannot see how on earth it is relevant.