= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jaibot comments on [LINK] Why I'm not on the Rationalist Masterlist - 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 (866)
No.
If "they" believe that. If you know of a large number of people who believe this, I am not aware of them.
Hiring isn't creating the barrier; the barrier - the inability to determine which candidate is qualified - is already there.
Did you mean to say "Yes" and get confused by the double negative? (That would be more consistent with the rest of your comment.)
I never said they believed that, at most they alieve that. My claim is that is what you get if you try to steel man their position as based on terminal values rather than factual confusion.
Confused: There doesn't appear to be a double-negative.
If you're not very intelligent, that is relevant to your physicist aspirations. It is not orthogonal.
I do not understand how your description is a steel man. It may be an attempt to extrapolate instrumental values from a certain set of terminal values, but that doesn't help us in our matter-of-fact disagreement about the terminal values of the SJ cluster.
If you want to steel man social justice, substitute the entire works of John Rawls.
Sorry, my mistake.
The part of his work that I have read, consisted of him making a social contract-type argument saying that since the contract must be made before risk preferences, i.e., whether one is risk averse to risk loving are assigned, we should treat everyone as maximally risk averse. There was also some talk about utility that mostly consisted of him misunderstanding the concept. This did not leave me particularly inclined to read the rest.