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.

eli_sennesh comments on Open Thread, Jun. 1 - Jun. 7, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Gondolinian 01 June 2015 12:45AM

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

Comments (203)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 June 2015 03:21:41PM 1 point [-]

Maybe I've gone far too deep into the Terrible LessWrong Cult, but could someone remind me why everyone else around me often seems to think that not-thinking and irrationality are happier, more satisfying ways to go through life than thinking clearly about stuff? Because I really don't fucking get it anymore.

Comment author: Epictetus 04 June 2015 04:46:03PM 3 points [-]

Being rational, intelligent, and able to make good decisions sounds great. If you could wave a magic wand and grant these things, I'm sure many people would like to take advantage. In the absence of a magic wand, the journey can be unpleasant and fraught with peril. Making progress involves seriously examining your own life and dealing with all those problems you'd rather not confront. It can ruin your present social life and require you to find a new circle (as with recovering alcoholics recognizing the difference between friends and drinking buddies).

And there are plenty of failure modes. There's a stereotype that the youth who first discovers atheism becomes arrogant and quarrelsome. A little learning is a dangerous thing. There's an initial decline in effectiveness of reason before it catches up to (and eventually surpasses) good old common sense. No one likes a straw Vulcan.

I would heartily recommend Erasmus of Rotterdam's In Praise of Folly for a satiric look at the benefits of not-thinking and irrationality. Here's an excerpt which I think is fitting for the present discussion:

To these, as bearing great resemblance to them, may be added logicians and sophisters, fellows that talk as much by rote as a parrot; who shall run down a whole gossiping of old women, nay, silence the very noise of a belfry, with louder clappers than those of the steeple; and if their unappeasable clamorousness were their only fault it would admit of some excuse; but they are at the same time so fierce and quarrelsome, that they will wrangle bloodily for the least trifle, and be so over intent and eager, that they many times lose their game in the chase and fright away that truth they are hunting for. Yet self-conceit makes these nimble disputants such doughty champions, that armed with three or four close-linked syllogisms, they shall enter the lists with the greatest masters of reason, and not question the foiling of them in an irresistible way, nay, their obstinacy makes them so confident of their being in the right, that all the arguments in the world shall never convince them to the contrary.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 June 2015 03:36:30PM 4 points [-]

It's much, much easier. Thinking clearly for most people ranges from hard to impossible. Worse, you might come to unpleasant or even dangerous conclusions. Much better to just go with the flow.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 June 2015 03:38:49PM 0 points [-]

But the unpleasant, dangerous truths are true (by definition). Ignoring them just means getting bitten on the ass later because you didn't want to think now!

Comment author: philh 05 June 2015 09:57:40AM 4 points [-]

Sometimes, ignoring an unpleasant truth just means that someone else gets bitten on the ass.

Comment author: [deleted] 05 June 2015 02:35:10PM 0 points [-]

And I'm supposed to not give a shit? I mean, I can't actually be assured that they deserved it.

Comment author: gjm 05 June 2015 04:42:01PM 1 point [-]

You can't be rationally assured that they deserved it...

(Though in fact I think this is all one notch too cynical.)

Comment author: [deleted] 05 June 2015 05:47:22PM 0 points [-]

(Though in fact I think this is all one notch too cynical.)

Agreed. Let's just stop now.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 June 2015 03:48:07PM 3 points [-]

First, you might get lucky. Second, getting bitten on the ass just indicates that the world is harsh, unjust, and personally mean to you. It can't possibly be your fault.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 June 2015 03:59:22PM 0 points [-]

Second, getting bitten on the ass just indicates that the world is harsh, unjust, and personally mean to you. It can't possibly be your fault.

Blaming someone other than me doesn't help me in any way whatsoever. I need to reason in actionable ways, not misread the universe's basic randomness as a moral decree.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 June 2015 04:06:00PM *  4 points [-]

Blaming someone other than me doesn't help me in any way whatsoever.

Of course it does. The status of a victim can be highly useful. Besides you get psychological comfort which is very important to a lot of people. Blaming oneself is unhealthy, dontcha know that? X-/

I need to reason in actionable ways

I see you have been corrupted by the LW cult. Thankfully, most people have not.

In general, let me suggest to you a couple of ways to think about it. First, consider people whose System 1 is much much stronger than System 2 and basically overwhelms it. Second, consider the relative importance of actual outcomes and feelings. For you actual outcomes matter more, but that is not true for everyone. To some people how they feel about something is more important that what actually happens.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 June 2015 06:28:58PM 1 point [-]

I see you have been corrupted by the LW cult. Thankfully, most people have not.

See, the problem is, I don't remember a time when I didn't think this way, which is why I fell in with LW-types in the first place. The kinds of talks that usually end in, "Doesn't that make you feel better?" have never made me actually feel better, because I always knew that no facts were being changed whatsoever.

For you actual outcomes matter more, but that is not true for everyone. To some people how they feel about something is more important that what actually happens.

Does anyone ever actually endorse this kind of thinking retrospectively, on reflection? That is, does anyone ever, for instance, get in a car crash and think, "Gosh, I sure felt great about not wearing a seatbelt, so the fact that I almost broke my neck and died is actually pretty ok"? That sounds pretty implausible to me.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 June 2015 07:03:59PM 2 points [-]

I don't remember a time when I didn't think this way, which is why I fell in with LW-types in the first place.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

Does anyone ever actually endorse this kind of thinking retrospectively, on reflection?

People we are talking about are not fans of retrospective thinking either and reflection -- that's what you use to check your makeup, amiright? X-)

Comment author: [deleted] 04 June 2015 07:07:13PM 2 points [-]

People we are talking about are not fans of retrospective thinking either and reflection -- that's what you use to check your makeup, amiright? X-)

You had to go and gender it?

Comment author: Lumifer 04 June 2015 07:14:41PM -2 points [-]

Yes, I think there is considerable difference between genders in this.

In fact, guys underestimating how important are "feelings" to girls is a very widespread problem in personal relations.

Comment author: ChristianKl 04 June 2015 05:37:39PM 1 point [-]

It's quite ironic, but people don't engage in not-thinking because they think not-thinking makes them happier. Pretty per definition, those people don't make there decision based by thinking.