Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Eugine_Nier comments on LW Women: LW Online - Less Wrong Discussion

29 Post author: daenerys 15 February 2013 01:43AM

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

Comments (591)

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

Comment author: handoflixue 20 February 2013 07:14:20PM 0 points [-]

Technique C already handles this: 10+5/2 = 7.5. 5+5/2 = 5. So clearly going from 10->5 is bad, but having both of them be at 7.5 would be better, and having both of them at 10 would be even better still.

For technique B, yes, you will get results that say power imbalances are unfair and should be destroyed. The simplest example I could give is a world where Hitler has a million soldiers and everyone else has 100,000 combined. That power imbalance is dangerous, because Hitler can leverage that advantage to gain an even larger advanage, and so, over time, that inequality gets worse, and it can even reduce net utility (after the war, Hitler has 950,000 soldiers and everyone else has 50,000 - 100K people died, and the world is more unfair!)

One of the big stumbling blocks for me with social justice was understanding that power imbalances can be bad in and of themselves. It's not just soldiers, either. This happens rather vividly with money and many other resources ("spoons" seem to work this way, if you're familiar with "spoon theory")

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 21 February 2013 05:28:43AM 0 points [-]

Technique C already handles this: 10+5/2 = 7.5. 5+5/2 = 5. So clearly going from 10->5 is bad, but having both of them be at 7.5 would be better, and having both of them at 10 would be even better still.

Of course technique C doesn't address the weasel example.

For technique B, yes, you will get results that say power imbalances are unfair and should be destroyed.

When did we switch from talking about utility to talking about power? I agree power imbalances are dangerous; however, this fact doesn't seem to bear on the weasel example.

Comment author: handoflixue 21 February 2013 09:13:20AM -2 points [-]

Of course technique C doesn't address the weasel example.

Have you considered using full thoughts... ooooh. What the hell is with all the trolls these days? :(

When did we switch from talking about utility to talking about power?

For the audience at home: That's because out in "reality", we can't measure utilions, so we use things like power and money as proxies. In an ideal utopia with perfectly calibrated Utili-meters, this would not be as relevant.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 22 February 2013 02:56:36AM 2 points [-]

Of course technique C doesn't address the weasel example.

Have you considered using full thoughts... ooooh.

I'm not sure how to read this. I'm leaning towards, "I don't have a counter argument so I'm going to resort to insults."

To get back to the point, the problem with technique C is that it doesn't address the case of adjusting test scores based on demographic priors, since the lowest utility (the people not accepted) is the same either way.

What the hell is with all the trolls these days?

You're the one who just dropped the discussion to DH level 1 or 2.

Comment author: handoflixue 22 February 2013 07:15:12PM 1 point [-]

You have a repeated pattern of not offering real responses: "Is this a parody?" "Is this?" being the biggest red flag I've encountered in this thread.

You are correct that I didn't have a refutation, because "I don't see how this ties in to the weasels" doesn't give me enough information to try and resolve your confusion. In short, lately you seem to be putting near-zero effort in to your replies: you're not attempting to explain your position, just offering pithy one-sentence objections that don't seem to contribute anything.

Given you have 2K karma and a few +50 rated comments, I'm willing to assume you've just had a bad week and actually explain this, but I still see no point in actually continuing the conversation, since your replies are all "taxing" me the same way a troll does: you put in minimal effort, and force the other person to hold it all afloat.

You're the one who just dropped the discussion to DH level 1 or 2.

It's the very definition of skilled trolling, to force other people to spend paragraphs defending themselves while you resort to easily misinterpreted one-sentence replies that do nothing to advance actual discourse.

The idea that I must maintain quality discourse, or even that it's more productive, is a trap that ends up with a bunch of well-fed trolls.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 23 February 2013 06:40:47AM 1 point [-]

You have a repeated pattern of not offering real responses: "Is this a parody?" "Is this?" being the biggest red flag I've encountered in this thread.

It's as real a response as the question it's a response to and I give a substantive response to Nisan's more substantive sentence.

You are correct that I didn't have a refutation, because "I don't see how this ties in to the weasels" doesn't give me enough information to try and resolve your confusion.

You could give some indication of what addition information would help. Here are some possibilities:

1) You didn't get what the weasels were referring to. Arguably I should have linked to this comment in the great-grandparent, but since the comment in question is yours, I assumed you'd get the reference.

2) You think the technique does in fact address the weasel example, in that case you could have said so as well as possibly how you think it applies.

3) Something I haven't thought of.