= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Open Thread, January 4-10, 2016 - 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 (430)
Discussion of the Bayes' Theorem as expounded by EY 8-/
Fairly active follow-up discussion on HN.
Reading that HN discussion... well, I understand that it doesn't necessarily tell me anything, but socially I can't help but notice how idiotic anti-LWers sound in that thread. Fnords upon strawmen upon fnords upon cherry-picking upon fnords upon claims that if anyone on LW ever said that the probability of something is greater than zero that means every single LWers is certain that thing is guaranteed upon mood affiliation upon misspellings of EY's name upon claims that if you don't condemn poster's political enemy you must be supporting it et cetera et cetera.
Your comment made me read the debate, but it seems rather boring to me. Okay, there are a few gems there, such as (rephrased and added a link):
Also, a list of our cult leader crimes includes "a clear violation of copyright law" -- wanting to monetize HPMoR fanfic. Which by the way is "an introductory religious text".
(Today I learned a new argumentational technique: Describe what someone is doing, and keep inserting the word "religious" in random places. Use the scare quotes to prevent possible criticism; yes, you know that the word does not apply literally. However, when you are finished, use the frequency of the "religious" adjective as a proof that yes, the group you described is de facto religious. Case closed.)
But generally, the discussion seems okay to me. I mean, I expect that most internet discussions contain this kind of argumentation. I take it for granted that someone will link the "RationalWiki".
When I imagine how that HN discussion would probably have looked like five years ago, I am quite satisfied with the outcome. Seeing that the pro and con voices are approximately balanced, that is much more than I have expected.
That's just a fnord.
I feel like I found a prokaryotic version of fnord, which is almost a different species. Only one word, repeated with no skills or subtlety, and then directly used as a punchline. I think modern-day fnords are supposed to have a larger vocabulary, so they can better merge with the text.
Eh, it's the same thing even if we replace some instances of the word 'religion' with synonyms like 'X fetishism', 'worshipping at X altar', 'fundamentalism', 'X-god'.
Interestingly enough, this is what the original ur-fnord was.
For anyone unfamiliar with the term: Fnord.
...so one of the basic writing skills, of adding meaning at a subtextual/connotative level? (Poe in particular was adamant that you should set the tone of the story in the first first sentence.)
I'm puzzled by that story. Any halfway decent author can do that with a halfway receptive audience without all the prior-hypnosis baggage, just by utilizing the negative feelings people develop towards words over the course of their lives. Periodic spacing of negative-connotation words throughout an otherwise neutral-connotative work would make most people uneasy or uncomfortable.
I think the fnords are meant to have more effect than merely making most people uneasy or uncomfortable; they're supposed to function as a means of outright control. But I haven't actually read the Illuminatus! trilogy so I don't guarantee I'm right about that.
In Illuminatus!, children were trained to have anxiety reactions to fnords in elementary school, and then have no conscious awareness of why they felt anxious. I assume this is allegory-- and also that most of the training doesn't happen in school.
I'd say that in the book, fnords are about control, but in a general "the system is out of control you" sort of way rather than getting specific beliefs or actions.
Ads don't have fnords, so people buy things in the hope of relieving anxiety. This is not literally true-- many ads evoke anxiety.
Becoming able to see the fnords is a sign of impending enlightenment.