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.

gwern comments on May 2015 Media Thread - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: ArisKatsaris 01 May 2015 10:13AM

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

Comments (51)

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

Comment author: gwern 01 May 2015 03:58:49PM 9 points [-]

Everything is heritable:

Politics/religion:

Statistics/AI/meta-science:

Psychology/biology:

Technology:

Economics:

Philosophy:

Fiction:

Comment author: CellBioGuy 03 May 2015 07:58:38AM 4 points [-]

"Genetics and the placebo effect: the placebome"

God dammit, FINALLY. I am endlessly frustrated by the universal use of placebo effects as the CONTROL GROUP rather than an object of study to be enhanced.

Comment author: Jiro 01 May 2015 06:37:42PM 3 points [-]

The vegetarian article seems to be saying "because the argument against eating meat is so good, we need to explain the lack of vegetarians by...."

Popular psychology is an easy place to draw conclusions based on assuming that your side is in the right.

Comment author: Lumifer 01 May 2015 07:10:54PM 0 points [-]

The vegetarian article is also notable for demonstrating how many people have no problems pronouncing "I am a vegetarian" while chewing on chicken or fish...

Comment author: [deleted] 04 May 2015 12:47:20PM 0 points [-]

To me the whole problem is fascinating. I can very easily understand the idea of not wanting to kill personally, but how does one jump to not eating pre-killed meat, and especially to things that processed to the point where they don't look like meat at all such as sausage or salami? I mean, I understand that there are a handful of efficient utilitarian altruists who care about what the outcome is for the animal and now how doing the act feels for their own purity, but I would figure most people rate actions based on how they feel. And chewing pepperoni pizza does not feel the same way as a grimy, messy, bloody pig murder. I guess I am just surprised how many people think like utilitarians, caring about the outcome for the animal, instead of what I would think the more natural, namely avoiding to do actions that feel too gruesome but happily enjoying the results if others do them.

Comment author: Jiro 04 May 2015 02:12:53PM *  2 points [-]

Not eating prekilled meat and processed meat allows you to be part of a social movement and gain status. Not killing the meat personally doesn't.

Also, people do things based on how they feel, but don't like to be reminded of that. If the particular rationalization for doing what they feel happens to include an ethical claim, even if it is just a rationalization and they don't understand any theories of ethics, they will avoid a broad enough category to convince themselves that they really are doing it based on ethics.

Comment author: CellBioGuy 03 May 2015 07:13:55PM *  2 points [-]

"CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes"

There's been rumors about this paper for some time before it actually came out. If there's interest I could break it down...

Comment author: Vaniver 01 May 2015 06:53:17PM 1 point [-]

"Tacit Knowledge, Weapons Design, and the Uninvention of Nuclear Weapons", MacKenzie & Spinardi 1995

The link goes to:

<http://lesswrong.com/docs/1995-mackenzie.pdf>