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.

David_Gerard comments on [LINK] Why I'm not on the Rationalist Masterlist - Less Wrong Discussion

21 Post author: Apprentice 06 January 2014 12:16AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (866)

Comments (866)

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

Comment author: David_Gerard 06 January 2014 12:35:33PM *  13 points [-]

A Bayesian agent who goes through an upbringing as a boy and one who goes through an upbringing as a girl will probably not possess identical beliefs about society, the world, humanity, and so on. This is not because one has been held back or misled, nor because one is less rational than the other ... but because two different partial explorations of the same territory do not yield the same map.

The apparent inconceivability (in this thread) of the notion that someone might disagree on a deep level with local memes without being insane is quite amazing. Typical mind fallacy, the lack of realisation that there exist unknown unknowns.

This matters if we care about possessing accurate maps; and it also matters a great deal if what we are trying to map includes things like "the good of humanity" or "coherent extrapolated volition of humankind" or things like that.

Yes. This thread reads like LW is aimed at realising the CEV of well-off programmers in the Bay Area. If you're serious about working for all of humanity, it may conceivably be useful to seriously listen to some who don't already agree with you.

Comment author: ChristianKl 06 January 2014 05:12:43PM 14 points [-]

The apparent inconceivability (in this thread) of the notion that someone might disagree on a deep level with local memes without being insane is quite amazing. [...] If you're serious about working for all of humanity, it may conceivably be useful to seriously listen to some who don't already agree with you.

I don't think that's the case. If people would find that notion inconceivability I doubt that the thread would be upvoted to 19 at the point of this writing.

I would also point out that the kind of ideology that expressed in the linked post comes from the Bay Area. As far as core differences in ideologies goes pitting one Bay Area ideology against another Bay Area ideology isn't real diversity of opinion.

Comment author: CAE_Jones 06 January 2014 01:15:12PM 8 points [-]

The apparent inconceivability (in this thread) of the notion that someone might disagree on a deep level with local memes without being insane is quite amazing. Typical mind fallacy, the lack of realisation that there exist unknown unknowns.

I considered posting a third-hand account in the rationality quotes of a blind couple who, in a public park and not hearing anyone else nearby, decided to have sex. They told the judge they did not know that anyone could see them; maybe they didn't, what with plausibly having no idea what vision is capable of.

It felt too lengthy, and it wasn't originally intended as a parable, so I decided against posting it. I think it more easily explains itself in this context, though.

Comment author: RowanE 07 January 2014 10:53:00AM 0 points [-]

I don't see where those who disagree with local memes are being accused of insanity, and not noticing something like that scares me. Could you please point out where it's happening?

Comment author: David_Gerard 07 January 2014 11:16:35AM 3 points [-]

http://lesswrong.com/lw/jfr/link_why_im_not_on_the_rationalist_masterlist/aakh - found with a quick Ctrl-F for "insan".

Comment author: RowanE 07 January 2014 05:34:17PM 1 point [-]

Oh, well that actually looks fine and I think I agree with it. I was worried the comment you were replying to implied some stuff that was invisible to me due to biases.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 08 January 2014 02:53:24AM 4 points [-]

Well, in several places Eliezer uses "insane" and synonyms to mean irrational (according to his view). Search for "people are insane".

Comment author: Lumifer 07 January 2014 04:06:55PM 0 points [-]

Another example

Comment author: RowanE 07 January 2014 05:37:13PM 2 points [-]

That post is at negative karma, and is about US conservatives rather than about people who disagree with local memes.

Comment author: satt 09 January 2014 04:21:05AM 3 points [-]

To be fair to Lumifer, that comment now has zero karma, and US conservatives plausibly are a group of "people who disagree with local memes", given that they're in a tiny minority here (about 2%; in the 2012 survey there were 20 self-identified US conservatives, out of 1001 responses giving both a country and a political alignment).

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit