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] Another "LessWrongers are crazy" article - this time on Slate - Less Wrong Discussion

9 Post author: CronoDAS 18 July 2014 04:57AM

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

Comments (129)

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

Comment author: buybuydandavis 18 July 2014 06:53:54PM *  6 points [-]

obsessing and worried by the basilisk, even though they knew intellectually it was a silly idea

I had a similar but much lesser reaction (mildly disquieting) to the portrait of Hell given in the Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. I found the portrait had strong immediate emotional impact. Good writing.

More strangely, even though I always had considered the probability that Hell exists as ludicrously tiny, it felt like that probability increased from the "evidence" of a fictional story.

Likely all sorts of biases involved, but is there one for strong emotions increasing assigned probability?

Comment author: David_Gerard 18 July 2014 10:44:57PM 3 points [-]

I think people totally privilege hypotheses they've read about in compelling fiction. It's taking on board fictional evidence. I find it helps to keep in mind that a plausible story has too many details to be probable - "plausible" and "probable" are somewhat opposites - though it's harder to remember for a compelling story.