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.

Lumifer comments on Open Thread, January 4-10, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: polymathwannabe 04 January 2016 01:06PM

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

Comments (430)

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

Comment author: Lumifer 07 January 2016 03:59:52PM 2 points [-]

Today I learned a new argumentational technique: Describe what someone is doing, and keep inserting the word "religious" in random places.

That's just a fnord.

Comment author: Viliam 08 January 2016 01:13:28PM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: username2 08 January 2016 03:55:55PM 0 points [-]

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'.

Comment author: Lumifer 08 January 2016 03:40:11PM 0 points [-]

Only one word, repeated with no skills or subtlety

Interestingly enough, this is what the original ur-fnord was.

Comment author: gjm 07 January 2016 04:16:02PM 0 points [-]

For anyone unfamiliar with the term: Fnord.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 08 January 2016 07:38:02PM 0 points [-]

...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.

Comment author: gjm 08 January 2016 10:46:10PM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 12 January 2016 03:49:31PM 0 points [-]

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.