You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

paper-machine comments on Open Thread, October 1-15, 2012 - Less Wrong Discussion

1 Post author: David_Gerard 01 October 2012 05:54AM

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

Comments (477)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 02 October 2012 03:55:03AM *  13 points [-]

I disapprove of this thread on the principle that people should be able to idly speculate on their own blog without being harangued elsewhere.

I disapprove of your use of parables to smuggle in your economic hypotheses, rather than arguing for them competently and clearly.

I disapprove of your commentary, because I agree with wedrifid here:

(Claiming to have) mind read negative beliefs and motives in others then declaring them publicly tends to be frowned upon. Certainly it is frowned upon me.

Comment author: palladias 02 October 2012 03:22:21PM 7 points [-]

I disapprove of this thread on the principle that people should be able to idly speculate on their own blog without being harangued elsewhere.

Is this meant to apply just to LessWrongers? Because it seems kosher to discuss and critique blog posts generally in open threads.

Comment author: Yvain 02 October 2012 10:24:12PM 9 points [-]

On second thought, you make a good point. The problem wasn't Vaniver bringing it up, the problem was me not putting clear muflax-like epistemic state warnings on my blog.

Comment author: thomblake 02 October 2012 03:39:30PM 5 points [-]

I disapprove of this thread on the principle that people should be able to idly speculate on their own blog without being harangued elsewhere.

I disagree with your disapproval. While perhaps one wouldn't want to be "harangued", it is entirely appropriate to comment on publicly-available texts, and the open thread here is a perfectly acceptable place to do so.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 October 2012 03:59:34PM 2 points [-]

The emphasis (and hence the use of the word "harangued" over neutral variants like "discussed" or "criticized") was on the inappropriateness of Vaniver's repeated emotional appeals and status attacks against Yvain.

Forum switching is a well-known trolling technique that dates back to Usenet, and indeed possibly further.

Comment author: chaosmosis 03 October 2012 11:02:15PM 1 point [-]

It would have been legit if there was a link posted to the blog.

Comment author: thomblake 04 October 2012 01:46:44PM 0 points [-]

It would have been legit if there was a link posted to the blog.

There is one. And no edit marker on the comment. Confused.

Comment author: chaosmosis 04 October 2012 07:47:25PM *  0 points [-]

Can you point me to it? I control +F'd it for "less", "wrong", and "Vaniver" and found nothing.

Comment author: Vaniver 04 October 2012 11:21:28PM *  0 points [-]

I link to Yvain's livejournal from my comment on LW, but I don't link to my comment on LW from a comment on Yvain's livejournal, because I don't have a livejournal account and am not interested in making one.

I didn't look into it very hard (maybe they let you post comments anonymously?) because it wasn't clear to me which option was more polite.

Comment author: chaosmosis 05 October 2012 04:29:42AM 0 points [-]

I'm not super opposed to your not posting a link to the livejournal page. I just think it would definitely unquestionably have been legit if you did that, whereas it's about 3% shady the way you did it right now, to give a super rough estimate of the level of shadiness I feel coming off of that.

Comment author: Yvain 02 October 2012 07:17:15AM *  6 points [-]

I disapprove of this thread on the principle that people should be able to idly speculate on their own blog without being harangued elsewhere.

Thank you :)

EDIT: Actually, see here

Comment author: Vaniver 02 October 2012 04:27:08AM 6 points [-]

I disapprove of your use of parables to smuggle in your economic hypotheses, rather than arguing for them competently and clearly.

Very well.

First, people prefer longer lives to shorter ones.

Second, just as it is difficult to think of goods that are only absolute, it is difficult to think of goods that are only positional. The used car provides $4,500 in transportation value; the Ferrari provides $50,000 in transportation value.

Third, many professions create durable value and large positive externalities. 25% more lawyering or 25% more derivative trading may not have obvious positive benefits, but 25% more programming or 25% more engineering or 25% more science obviously do. Crunch time may be 20 hours a day instead of 16, and so the programmers have just as little time to themselves, but the product will actually be superior, which seems like a Pareto gain.

Fourth, phase changes have effects that are difficult to anticipate. A world that moved at startup speed- where more people were massively productive and focused- could be far more glorious, delightful, and pleasant than our world. It is difficult to imagine just how miserable conditions were when society was liquid, rather than a gas; similarly, it is difficult for a gas to imagine the joys of being a plasma.

I disapprove of your commentary

I agree it was insufficiently clear. I meant that Yvain has seen societies that are both liquid and gas, and I do not see how someone who grasped the difference between those phases could write a post like his.

Comment author: Gabriel 02 October 2012 10:39:52AM *  6 points [-]

I agree it was insufficiently clear. I meant that Yvain has seen societies that are both liquid and gas, and I do not see how someone who grasped the difference between those phases could write a post like his.

You are overestimating the value of reasoning by metaphor and the extent to which your metaphors are shared by others.

When I take a pot of water and heat it, it becomes gas. If I seal the pot and keep heating, it won't become plasma. It will blow up in my face. See, a metaphor!

Comment author: Vaniver 02 October 2012 08:10:01PM 1 point [-]

You are overestimating the value of reasoning by metaphor and the extent to which your metaphors are shared by others.

It would seem so, and I will try to adjust my style from here on out. Writing was easier when most were a step or two removed from the farm.

Comment author: CronoDAS 02 October 2012 09:05:17AM 5 points [-]

I agree it was insufficiently clear. I meant that Yvain has seen societies that are both liquid and gas, and I do not see how someone who grasped the difference between those phases could write a post like his.

I don't think I understand the metaphor here.

Comment author: Vaniver 02 October 2012 08:09:00PM *  3 points [-]

Haiti is miserably poorer than America, in large part because of its people and its institutions. Not just in the sense of physical goods, but in most of the things that make life grand, and the things that make life annoying.

Similarly, we are poorer than the future will be- again, because of people and institutions. (Technology- as in, knowledge about reality and devices that make clever use of that knowledge- is the result of people and institutions.)

Importantly, this is not just in the sense of physical goods. It is one thing to compare a McMansion to a comfortably sized home; it is another to compare the sort of life lived by someone who lives in a world where they can buy a customized continent to someone who lives in a world where they can buy a McMansion.

And so, in light of those changes, to look at a spark that could ionize our gas and say "but we'll just be running in circles faster!" seems to miss the point. No, when every manager is a clear-headed executive, commercial organizations will be better run and more pleasant to deal with, and the sorts of things we can do will go from great to fantastic. What does it matter that the yachts will be longer and the quays more crowded with them?

Comment author: CronoDAS 03 October 2012 01:34:05AM 2 points [-]

Thank you.