Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Lumifer comments on Project Hufflepuff - Less Wrong Discussion

31 Post author: Raemon 18 January 2017 06:57PM

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

Comments (35)

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

Comment author: Lumifer 19 January 2017 09:25:40PM 1 point [-]

Not trusting the words but relying on externally-verifiable evidence hardly seems Hufflepuffish...

I would probably call it "common sense", but out of the four Houses it should be a Slytherin virtue.

Comment author: onlytheseekerfinds 19 January 2017 10:02:33PM *  0 points [-]

There's also an element of instrumental rationality quite beautifully captured there, shifting the focus from ideation to concrete action by setting a certain waterline for what should be regarded as worth attention.

Similar to the Latin Acta, non Verba.

It's a principle of practicality - which category strikes me as largely overlapping HP's home territory.

Comment author: Viliam 20 January 2017 11:13:46AM 1 point [-]

Similar to the Latin Acta, non Verba.

You misspelled Avada Kedavra. /s

Comment author: Lumifer 19 January 2017 10:25:15PM *  0 points [-]

I don't think that setting a threshold "for what should be regarded as worth attention" is an expression of the principle of practicality.

It is, of course, in a trivial way, but it's the same way in which putting on your shoes before going outside is an expression of the same principle.

Plus acta non verba implies a certain distrust for words. Distrust is not a Hufflepuff thing at all.

Comment author: onlytheseekerfinds 19 January 2017 11:09:40PM 0 points [-]

It is, of course, in a trivial way

Practicality is usually in some sense "trivial", not so? Is there any sense in which the word implies complexity or subtlety?

Comment author: Lumifer 23 January 2017 05:42:50PM 1 point [-]

To me, practicality doesn't imply triviality.

I'd say that "practical' has two main meanings. One is "achievable given certain constraints and limits", the antonym is "impractical". Two is "focusing on the direct outputs", the antonym is a bit hard to come by but the opposite meaning is, basically, "done for status/signaling purposes".

Neither of the two meanings implies simplicity or bluntness.