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.

Gleb_Tsipursky comments on [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS - Less Wrong Discussion

-1 Post author: Gleb_Tsipursky 23 November 2015 01:47AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (275)
Tags: politics news intentionalinsights wordspreading raisingsanitywaterline rationality

Comments (275)

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

Comment author: OrphanWilde 23 November 2015 02:47:56PM 12 points [-]

What terrorists want is irrelevant. "Don't play into enemy hands" is irrelevant. The entire discussion is irrelevant.

The correct response to enemy action is the response that furthers your own ends. It doesn't matter what effect this has on your enemy, good, neutral, or positive; your long-term ends matter.

"The primary thing when you take a sword in your hands is your intention to cut the enemy, whatever the means. Whenever you parry, hit, spring, strike or touch the enemy's cutting sword, you must cut the enemy in the same movement. It is essential to attain this." A particularly relevant quote from Musashi, used by Eliezer on at least one occasion in the sequences.

Avoiding doing what the enemy wants is mere parrying. Stop mere parrying, and cut.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 24 November 2015 09:49:33PM 1 point [-]

Very much agreed. As I say in the op-ed:

Recent research shows that after any emotionally powerful event, in politics or private life, our brains tend to assign too much weight to that event, compared with what is really important to us. This thinking error is called attentional bias. To fight this thinking error, we should consider what are our actual long-term goals and how to achieve them in the best possible manner.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit