Rationality Quotes March 2013
Another monthly installment of the rationality quotes thread. The usual rules apply:
- Please post all quotes separately, so that they can be upvoted or downvoted separately. (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments. If strongly ordered, then go ahead and post them together.)
- Do not quote yourself.
- Do not quote from Less Wrong itself, Overcoming Bias, or HPMoR.
- No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.
Loading…
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (341)
-- Paul Graham
— Doug Henwood
This one is excellent! Thankyou satt! (Almost disappointing that it was 'wasted' as a mere reply.)
This is one lesson I think The Last Psychiatrist is good at teaching.
It seems to me that The Last Psychiatrist makes up theories about what people really mean according to his mental habits. Is there any way of checking his claims?
What I've gotten out of reading TLP is not detailed psychological theories so much as suggestions for where to look for hypotheses about why people do what they do, e.g. hypotheses focused on preserving a particular self-image. If I find that looking for such hypotheses helps me predict what people do in the future better than looking for other types of hypotheses, that might be considered evidence that TLP's point of view is a fruitful one.
-- John Walker, The Hacker's Diet (~loc 250 on an e-reader)
-- George Bernard Shaw
Related: Wiio's laws.
And http://lesswrong.com/lw/ki/double_illusion_of_transparency/
Hmm. I think I know what you meant to convey by linking to that, but... do I really?
--Frank Herbert, "The Tactful Saboteur"
-- Miro, in Xenocide by Orson Scott Card
I assume "possible" in this context means "with probability higher than epsilon". Otherwise, there are too many possible things not worth thinking about.
Right.
-Seth Godin
Tao Te Ching
Harry S. Truman “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.” ― Harry S. Truman tags: accomplishment, achievement, inspirational, misattributed, modesty, recognition 235 people liked it like
Ronald Reagan “There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don't care who gets the credit.” ― Ronald Reagan
Cute. :) And someone on Wikiquotes traces it back to
"The way to get things done is not to mind who gets the credit." --Benjamin Jowett (1817-1893)
Somehow it seems appropriate that it's hard to track down the originator of this idea.
Could we use "threshold for letting someone else take credit" as a signal for altruism?
Seems difficult. The people sending this signal are necessarily sending it really quietly. I guess it could be a good way to evaluate someone you know well. It wouldn't work to pick an altruist out of a crowd if you're, say, looking at job applicants.
― Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club
On the presentation of science in the news:
David Wong — 5 Easy Ways to Spot a BS News Story on the Internet
I don't understand why we can't simply build an LFTR. I can't find anything online about why we can't just build an LFTR. I get the serious impression that what we need here is like 0.1 wild-haired scientists, 3 wild-haired nuclear engineers, 40 normal nuclear engineers, and sane politicians. And that China has sane politicians but for some reason can't produce, find, or hire the sort of wild-haired engineers who just went ahead and built a molten-salt thorium reactor at Oak Ridge in the 1960s.
I think looking at politicians as insane is entirely the wrong approach. Most of them are sane enough, they just operate under some perverse incentives (and I wouldn't bet on China's being too reasonable either). That said, allegedly China does have plans for thorium, although I'm not too familiar with the details. (Also, recent article suggesting plans are still going.)
Well, that very same Cracked article has this to say:
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFTR#Disadvantages" Interestingly, that same wiki page possible solutions to most of the disadvantages Personally, I think the biggest reason is that Carter stopped the research decades ago, so there are no actual examples of the technology to evaluate. People thereby assume that because no-one is doing it, it must not be worthwhile.
Those are not very impressive disadvantages.
So far as I can tell, the only insurmountable disadvantage is that you can't use a Thorium reactor to make nuclear bombs. Wait, did I say disadvantage? I meant advantage. Or, well ... are you a politician or an average person? That'll make the difference between advantage and disadvantage.
Considering that politicians get ahead by gaining the approval of their constituents, I'd think that now that America is no longer in an arms race, a politician could probably get ahead by proclaiming support for sustainable nuclear energy which does not have a chance of producing weapons.
Except for where that would mean announcing support for nuclear energy.
"Or, well..."
Was that subtle framing intentional?
According to Wikipedia, there are at least 4 groups currently working on LFTRs, one of which is China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFTR#Recent_developments
Right. They're hiring 150 PhD students and it's still supposed to take 20 years. This seems like a prime instance of the We Can't Do Anything Effect.
A working LFTR is worth a lot of money. If this is so easy, everyone is missing out on an easy way to get rich.
No, the economy is missing out on an easy way to get rich. No one person is missing out on an easy way to get rich. China wants to build LFTRs but can't solve some sort of hiring problem (I have friends who've been offered positions in China, and the Chinese definitely think their academic culture is inferior to Western academic culture, and they appear to be correct).
Also I am generally quite willing to believe people are crazy.
"Coordination problems are hard."
Yes, I agree. I don't understand the surprise, though.
In nearly all countries you need a permit to build a nuclear reactor, and said permits are frequently denied for political reasons. Not to mention that the biggest risk of building a nuclear power plant is probably having it shutdown by anti-nuclear activists before you can recoup the cost of building it.
That second point is particularly important. Since present governments cannot reliably bind future governments, credibility is a big issue with any politically-sensitive project with a long time horizon.
No patents on nuclear physics - If someone proves that LFTR is commercially viable, every reactor vendor will have a model out the year after. Heck players that are currently not in the reactor game at all would likely pile in. This would be a very good thing for the economy and the environment, but it means the incentives are ass-backwards for actually doing this for any actors other than national governments.
.. No, lets be honest here: "France, China, India". With a dark horse bet on the Czechs. Those are the only four players likely to cast steel and pour concrete. If you want it done quickly, sell François Hollande on the idea as a way out of the economic mess.
<seriousness level="low"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RaptorHunter/FunFacts#Thorium_reactor </seriousness>
The roulette table pays nobody except him that keeps it. Nevertheless a passion for gaming is common, though a passion for keeping roulette tables is unknown.
--George Bernard Shaw, Maxims for Revolutionists
I think people would keep roulette tables more, so to speak, in the US if gambling weren't so heavily regulated here.
Nereo Rocco
(I tried a rough tranlsation, but it sounds way better in Italian)
I like this translation better than the version where it was translated to 'class'. Good change. (Unless my memory is failing me...)
I modified the post after less than five minutes... are you spying on me? ;)
Thank you, preserving the feeling, alongside the literal meaning, while translating in a foreign language can be surprisingly difficult (for me, at least).
-- Thomas Sowell
I can imagine one easily. Where they have an active incentive to be wrong.
Interesting to contrast the connotation with:
Or:
I think the "pay no price for being wrong" formulation is stronger than the "gain nothing from being right" one because of loss aversion (which makes penalties a stronger incentive), and either is stronger than your second suggestion because of pithiness.
Good points.
My take on it: I'd noticed that "people who pay no price for being wrong" primed ideas of punishment in my mind, not just loss. "People who gain nothing from being right" primed ideas of commerce or professionalism — an engineer gains by being right, as does a military commander, a bettor, a venture capitalist, or the better sort of journalist.
And the third formulation doesn't prime anything but "this sounds like Less Wrong".
The biggest problem with your first alternative is that in it, not having an opinion is equivalent to being wrong.
A lot of the problems with the financial collapse was that various entities and people got to play with the money of other people, with good payouts if they get it right, but no commensurate hit if they got it wrong. While the best outcome is still being right, this kind of situation is bad because it incentivizes taking risk over not taking it. So, a lot of people making those decisions loaded up on as much risk as they could take, ignoring the downsides.
I dunno -- Yvain here seems to have a good point:
[emphasis as in the original]
- patio11
Bertrand Russell
I was the only student in my high school graduating class that wasn't unique.
Works for a class size of 1, in a way.
Solipsism is my problem and mine alone.
Jason Roy
It should be said about things that appear to work because of confirmation bias.
John Adams, US President
Related
--Bryan Caplan
On consciousness:
-- Blindsight, by Peter Watts
If it treats everything it sees as a cosmic-ray, it's a pretty terrible cosmic-ray sensor.
Not necessarily. Cosmic rays are just electromagnetic energy on particular (high) frequencies. So if it interprets everything along those lines, it's just seeing everything purely in terms of the EM spectrum... in other words 'normal, uninteresting background case, free of cosmic rays'. So things that don't trigger high enough to be cosmic rays, like itself, parse as meaningless random fluctuations... presumably, if it was 'intelligent', it would think that it existed for no reason, as a matter of random chance, like any other case of background radiation below the threshold of cosmic rays, without losing any ability to perceive or understand cosmic rays.
– R. Scott Bakker: The Judging Eye
-- wtallis
--Frank Herbert, Dune
I have a funny story about that quote...
To learn which questions are unanswerable, and not to answer them: this skill is most needful in times of stress and darkness.
--Ursula K. Le Guin {Lord Estraven}, The Left Hand of Darkness
Scott Aaronson
Arabella Flynn
-- German weather lore / farmers' rule
Repeat.
-- Freeman Dyson
No, the trial was.
The error was epiphenomenal.
The error was essential in the sense that it was an inevitable outcome of an essential process. Similarly you might say, "exhaling carbon dioxide is not essential for survival; what you really need is to turn food into energy." But if I was prevented from exhaling CO2, I would quickly run into problems.
Bad analogy. If I don't get rid of waste products I will die. If I don't make a mistake I will... succeed more quickly and be unrealistically lucky. That's entirely different.
To say the error is essential is a mistake. The error is inevitable, not essential.
In terms of control systems, trial is the forward path and error is the feedback, so let's agree that both are needed for success...
-Bill Gates in his AMA on reddit.
I wrote an email to Bill Gates after reading his answer. I suggested that he should invest in anti-ageing research and/or cryonics. Ageing is a disease that afflicts everybody, and I think it would be a far better use of his money if he pledges financial support for anti-ageing research than if he continues pouring funding into curing malaria.
In addition, he has enough clout to motivate more people to take anti-ageing seriously instead of dismissing it as wishful thinking.
-Dawkins Into to the 30th anniversary edition of the Selfish Gene.
W. H. Auden
-Natalie Reed
Something a friend said that made sense in context that really cracked me up:
"I'm decidedly aware of unknown unknowns."
celandine13
If the only way to get a clearer picture of the world - to enhance it epistemically, as it were - were to make it much better to start with, would the Utilitarians finally have found an argument that convinces any epistemic rationalist?
Only if there were no uncertainty about what "better" meant.
Is the idea that, because people naturally shy away from bad info, making the world better also makes it easier (on the emotions) to understand?
...Very interesting. That is a thought that's going to fester, in a good way.
From a great book
Hm... I'm sure the author means well by that statement, but I don't know if you can really talk about predictions for long without using the vocabulary of belief and truth.
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Zettel § 413; via "Fable of The Born-Blind-People"
(Gb rkcerff guvf va zber YJl wnetba: vs lbh qvq abg nyernql xabj gur jbeq be pbaprcg snvel, jung bofreingvbaf jbhyq cevivyrtr gur fcrpvsvp ulcbgurfvf bs 'snvevrf' gb gur cbvag jurer vg jbhyq orpbzr n frevbhf cbffvovyvgl? Ubj znal ovgf jbhyq gung gnxr naq jurer jbhyq lbh trg gurz, nfvqr sebz gur zrqvn naq bgure crbcyr'f cebqhpgf?)
As long as others know and believe in such concepts, it is important that your child learns about them from a trustworthy source, before being introduced to such concepts by fairy-believers.
This is especially the case if the message is generalized. That is, if the well meaning but naive parent tries to keep their children ignorant of all things bullshit. They are deprived key critical thinking skills and the ability to comfortably interact (and reject) nonsense beliefs that will be thrust on them.
That's what Santa Claus is for.
There are downsides to keeping one's children sheltered. Eventually they are going to encounter the rest of the world.
Down voted for unnecessary rot13
More importantly IMO than it being unnecessary is that there is no indication of what is going to be behind the rot31 so I don't know whether it's safe to rot13 or not. The first sentence would be best left in plain-text.
The same place the belief in fairies originally came from. Humans' tendency to anthropomorphize.
Humans tend to anthropomorphize, but this is filtered through cultural beliefs and forms - you do not get a highly specific concept like 'fairies' out of a general anthropomorphization, any more than people got Dracula out of their fear of the dark pre-Bram Stoker. I've linked studies here on what children believe and anthropomorphize by default, and it tends to look like 'other people and animals continue to exist even after dying'; not 'the Unseelie and Seelie folk live in hills and if you visit them, be sure to not eat any of their food or you will be their prisoner for a century'.
"I wish to defend this world. I wish to protect this world which God has abandoned, and defend it against everything that threatens it!"
-- To the Stars (Madoka fanfiction)
Spoilers!
What's the rationality-related moral?
Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal
Not having hopes and dreams?
Then what are you risking?
As I once quoted:
-- "Happy Talk", South Pacific
--Rod Dreher
(Post slightly edited in response to comments below)
This sort of argument was surprisingly common in the 18th and 19th century compared to today. The Federalist Papers, for example, lay out the problem as a set of premises leading inexorably to a conclusion. I find it hard to imagine a politician successfully using such a form of argument today.
At least that's my impression; perhaps appeals to authority and emotion were just as common in the past as today but selection effects prevent me from seeing them.
Also, in the past the people you were trying to convince were likely to be better educated.
Today's politicians don't use writing as their primary means of convincing other people. Airplane travel is cheap. It doesn't cost much to get a bunch of people into a room behind closed doors and talk through an issue.
This is not a good way to argue about anything except mathematics. It takes the wrong attitude towards how words work and in practice doesn't even make arguments easier to debug because there are usually implicit premises that are not easy to tease out.
For example, suppose I say "A (a thing that affects X) hasn't changed. B (a thing that affects X) hasn't changed. C (a thing that affects X) hasn't changed. Therefore, X hasn't changed." There's an implicit premise here, namely "A, B, C are the only things that affect X," which is almost certainly false. It is annoyingly easy not to explicitly write down such implicit premises, and trying to argue in this pseudo-logical style encourages that mistake among others.
(In general, I think people who have not studied mathematical logic should stop using the word "logic" entirely, but I suppose that's a pipe dream.)
I agree that the formal "premiss + premiss + premiss = conclusion" style of arguing is not good outside formal contexts. But still, the appropriate response would be "Your argument is wrong because it doesn't take into account D", not "that's your opinion and I have mine".
Well, that depends on what the premises and conclusion were. "That's your opinion" can be used as a deflecting move if someone doesn't want to have a particular debate at that particular moment (e.g. if the premises and conclusions were about something highly charged and the woman was not interested in having a highly charged debate). Ignoring a deflecting move could be considered a social blunder, and maybe that's what the woman was responding to. There are a lot of ways to read this situation, and many of them are not "haha, look at how irrational this woman was."
Unfortunately, a lot of people have taken to using these kinds of deflective moves to protect their irrational beliefs.
People who have not studied mathematical logic reserved the word well before those who have studied mathematical logic. If a field wants to make a word that means something different to what it used to mean or is exclusive to those in the field then it should make up a new word.
I should clarify. I'm not exactly worried that people will mix up the colloquial meaning of logic with the mathematical meaning of mathematical logic. I just want people to taboo "logic" because I think it is frequently used to label a particular style of bad argument in order to mask certain kinds of weaknesses that such arguments have. Studying mathematical logic is one way to recognize that there's something off about how people colloquially use the word "logic," but I suppose it's not the only way.
Would the quote sound as bad to you if “logic” was replaced with “reasoning”?
As per Postel's law, if a word has both a colloquial meaning and a technical meaning, the latter is not what I want, and there's a decent synonym for the former, I personally use the synonym instead (e.g. “usefulness” instead of “utility”, “substantial” or “sizeable” instead of “significant”, etc.), but as per Postel's law I don't demand that other people do the same, especially if the colloquial meaning is way more widespread overall.
The below discussion is why "person" is such a useful feminist word.
The quote sounds stereotyping/sexist, though the article it's quoted from isn't.
I honestly don't think so, because I don't see any implication or subtext in the quote that the attitude that this particular woman took is representative of all/most women, or more prevalent in women than in men. It is just as easy to imagine a man taking this attitude, it just happened to be a woman in this particular conversation.
I saw exactly that subtext.
The quote opens "I once had a civil argument with a woman". The author spends one noun to describe this person, and spends it on gender. It could have been "with a friend" or "with a politician" or even just "I once had a civil argument" (that the author had it with somebody is implied in the nature of argument). The antiepistimologist has exactly one characteristic: gender, and that characteristic is called out as important.
It gets worse because being bad at logic is an existing negative stereotype of women.
Single data point: when I read "I once had a a civil argument with a woman", it immediately felt sexist to me. I think I half-expected something about "how men think versus how women think". The whole thing doesn't feel sexist to me, just that opening.
(I do not necessarily endorse that feeling.)
Yep. It's a matter of what features are salient to mention.
If someone said "I once had a civil argument with a German" it would sound like they were saying that it was unusual or notable for an argument with a German to be civil; or possibly that the person's Germanness was somehow relevant to the civility of the argument — maybe they cited Goethe or something?
(On the other hand, it might be that they were trying to imply that they were well-traveled or cosmopolitan; that they've talked to people of a lot of nationalities.)
If the identity mentioned is a stereotyped group, a lot of people would tend to mentally activate the stereotype.
I did not see a sexist subtext, where I think I would have seen a discriminatory subtext if he had used "I once had a civil argument with a German," because "woman" in this case explains his later pronoun use. If the person had been a man, I would have expected him to say "man", rather than "person", to better clarify his later use of "he."
In retrospect though, I can see why other people would interpret it as having a sexist subtext.
I think this thread is also experiencing this effect.
Quick! Where did your brain put emphasis first?! Maybe we need a poll to see if the distribution is roughly uniform. (Or maybe it's not uniform as shown by existing research I don't know about.)
Also, I really like the German example.
I once had a civil argument with a German. Germans' arguments are usually uncivil, but this one time ....
I once had a civil argument with a German. Most of my arguments with Germans are flamewars and cussin'.
I once had a civil argument with a German. Germans are so civil, even their arguments are civil!
I once had a civil argument with a German. I'm so good at civil arguments (or so well-traveled) I've even had one with a German!
Another data point: I had the very same experience (including not endorsing the feeling - I actually was a bit embarrassed).
In response to three data points, I update in the direction of the quote: a) pattern-matching to typical sexist beliefs, and b) possibly causing a reinforcement of sexist biases in some readers. I still don't think the quote was sexist in intent, just meaning to illustrate a relativist Zeitgeist with a personal anecdote that happened to feature a woman, but I recognize that its actual effect can be divorced from its intent.
What should I do? Edit it to include some sort of disclaimer?
The next few sentences, ending with "I think that’s how most of us roll these days. It’s laziness, mostly. I’m guilty of it too" show that this was, in fact, not a case of stereotyping.
I think you could change "a woman" to "[someone]" using those editorial bracket things and the pronouns won't be weird. Just draw attention away from the word and make the quote closer to what you wanted it to say? It makes perfect sense to me that something yanked out of its context would acquire weird connotations that you didn't intend and didn't notice because you read it in context.
(I also feel like you get a similar effect if you change "woman" to "lady" and I have no idea why.)
That's probably what I've done, too.
(I'm not a native speaker, so don't trust me about this.) Using “woman” suggests that the only salient feature about that person was her gender, which is indeed kind-of weird IMO; OTOH, using “lady” (or “girl”) would suggest that her adult (or young) age was also salient, and that would lower my estimate for how strongly the out-group homogeneity effect affects Rod Dreher when he thinks about women. (Also, I'm under the impression that many of the stereotypes about women are closer to the truth in the case of younger women than in the case of older ones (as an ageing effect, not a cohort effect), though this might be due to selection effects in the groups of people I interact with.)
Popular evopsych, summed up: "Men and women are different. Humans and chimps are the same."
Cliff Pervocracy
This seems to me a form of equivocation: "different" as used in the first sentence and "the same" as used in the second sentence are not opposites. The context is different; the intended meaning (insofar as any evo-psychologists actually make such claims) is something like this:
"Men and women are more different, on average, than men and other men, and certainly more different than (some? most?) people think. The difference is sufficiently large that we cannot indiscriminately apply psychological principles and results across genders."
"Humans and chimps are closer than (some? most?) people think; in fact, sufficiently close that we can apply unexpectedly many psychological principles and results across these two species."
I don't know of anyone (even in "popular" evo-psych) who endorses the view implied in the quote, which I suppose would be something like:
"Humans are chimps are less different from each other than men and women."
In short, I think the quote mocks a strawman.
Flamboyant straw men do not belong in the Rationality Quotes thread. Cliff is clearly not accurately describing reality. Popular evopsych doesn't say that. It doesn't matter how irrational the opponents who are being criticised are, bullshit is still bullshit.
It's worth noting that LWers may have more exposure to real evopsych relative to popular evopsych. I for one had despared of ever finding rational evopsych before discovering this site. Pop evopsych is incredibly bad.
Pop evopsych may very well be incredibly bad (I wouldn't know myself, as I've been exposed to very little of it). But if a quote doesn't have any instructive value beyond making fun of bad ideas -- as opposed to more general biases, and even there I'm leery of the "making fun" bit -- I'm not sure it belongs here. Particularly if they're also politically sensitive ideas.
I wouldn't, for example, consider clever attacks on religion to be shiningly rational.
Can you add a NSFW disclaimer?
Much more from the same author.
-- David Henderson quoting a flight attendant
As far as cynical but practical very-mildly-Machiavellian life advice goes that has potential. (I'm not sure if that was the intended message...)
-Futurama
Arman Suleimenov
Sounds good! Now if only I knew which problems were solved...
"You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way." - Tom Willhite
The wise man must have an awful lot of time on his hands, or else not come across many new ideas...
If you're here, you've got time.
Yes, but probably also a lot more ideas.
ETA: (Wow that sounds very intentionally 'yay us!' applause light-y. Let here be defined as any of a number of internet sites. )
-Matt Vana
Can I get mad at the programmers of video games when the game is poorly balanced or designed, or simply broken?
Can I get mad at a video game that implements an agent?
And what the hell is all this pay-to-win microtransaction crap? Life's devs should change their business model.
Yeah, but have you seen the graphics? And the NPC AI? I think the physics engine might be buggy though.
The graphics and sound are great when they work, but they seem to be out a solid third of the time.
It just makes the game more realistic. After all, IRL you can almost always pay your way out of a situation if you have the coin and the connections.
I think you've misread the comment. DaFranker is already talking about RL.
What good does getting mad do? What does it accomplish?
Asks the guy who routinely gets mad at a video game that was made for WIndows 95.
Activates the fight or flight response, which increases your power output and generally has effects that in some cases would be useful. We do not frequently encounter these cases these days. And in particular, it's very unlikely that either of the cases described above would be useful times to get mad, unless I'm skilled at sublimating anger into effective writing (first case) or more effective gameplay (second case).
Also, it could get you to stop playing.
Seems like a face-lift of "Don't Sweat the Small Stuff ... and it's all small stuff".
Also
Elbert Hubbard
Sean Thomason
Randy Pausch in The Last Lecture.
This seems pretty irrational to me. Ask a lucky stock trader whether you should try to beat the market or not and he'd reply that you should, and damn the statistics, because the efficient market hypothesis applies only to other people.
He was saying that you should keep trying after most people would give up, not that you should expect everything to magically go your way.
Those two concepts have some overlap. Why should we use our energy trying to accomplish something that many have failed? Do we have good reason to discard the validity of their efforts? Are there good reasons to think our particular abilities are better suited to the task? Are we going to make some incremental progress that others can build on?
This seems to be a fully general argument for the virtue of anything being difficult.
The difficulty of getting a liver transplant isn't to make you die, it's to give you a chance to show how badly you want to live! The system is there to stop people who don't want to live badly enough. They are there to stop people who deserve to die!
And you could make that argument while you had a magical liver producing machine as a justification for not using it.
What are the brick walls? Who put them there? I don't get it.
The brick walls are any barriers that get in the way of getting what you want. He gives the example of that he was a faculty adviser for a team that won a trip on the vomit comet, and he wanted to go, but faculty advisers were not allowed to come. But the team was allowed to bring a journalist, so he resigned as faculty adviser and got a press pass.
Surely a man who possesses even a little erectioris ingenii [of the higher way of thinking] has not become entirely a cold and clammy mollusk, and when he approaches what is great it can never escape his mind that from the creation of the world it has been customary for the result to come last, and that, if one would truly learn anything from great actions, one must pay attention precisely to the beginning. In case he who should act were to judge himself according to the result, he would never get to the point of beginning. Even though the result may give joy to the whole world, it cannot help the hero, for he would get to know the result only when the whole thing was over, and it was not by this he became a hero, but he was such for the fact that he began.
--Soren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling
"The 'law of causality' is obsolete and misleading. The principle 'same cause, same effect' is utterly otiose. As soon as the antecedents have been given sufficiently fully to enable the consequent to be calculated with some exactitude, the antecedents have become so complicated that it is very unlikely they will ever recur." - Bertrand Russell "On the Notion of Cause", 1913
What's the context here? Many kinds of experiments are repeatable after all.
I could think of several possible interpretations of this, but I'm not sure which one you or Munroe have in mind. Can you justify it?
To me it sounds like a complaint about what are variably called "cargo-cult", "voodoo", or "superstitious" practices in IT: repeating curative procedures that are available to mind, without understanding why (or if) they ever worked, in situations where they may not have any application. There are a lot of procedures that users can learn by rote without having to know why they ever work, and that are cheap and safe enough that using them when they don't do any good isn't likely to do any harm either.
I think it is a comment on the tendency of human minds to model complex systems as simple ones and therefore stick strongly to a few remedies whether they are sensible or not - ancestrally "whack it with a club" but in the case of computers, "reboot it", "run the virus scanner" and "defrag it". Admittedly, for old computers that relied on vacuum tubes whose connections would sometimes work loose, "whack it with a club" did, in fact, occasionally work.
Admittedly, rebooting works surprisingly often (especially on Windows).
Although the majority of problems encountered at my school's IT desk can be solved by rebooting the ones that can't are a pain to fix.
Occasionally for more modern computers, too! This can happen when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the air get adsorbed by circuit board contacts, where the VOCs react to form frictional polymers. Then...
(From a 1997 New Scientist article (PDF).)
It sounds like Michael Wilson's "We must program the AI in LISP, because if we don't, LISP purists will spend the next several subjective millennia arguing that it should have been done in LISP."
EDIT: Read the XKCD. It sounds like typical Strossian cynicism about how the 'Singularity' will look like a malfunctioning computer or something. Obviously not talking about the intelligence explosion.
Not sure I see that - this is about how non-computer people think about computers, not about the real behaviour of a real singularity.
In an article proclaiming the transcendent use of complicated, modern statistics in baseball, and in particular, one called "WAR" (wins above replacement):
I downvoted for equivocating between faith and probability.
A doctor walking in with a syringe full of something that he says will prevent measles I would assign a much higher probability to being true than Bob from the car mechanic walking in with a syringe full of strange liquid that Bob says will prevent measles.
Essentially this seems like the fallacy of gray.
I'm not really sure that counts as faith. Faith usually implies something like "believing something without concern for evidence". And in fact, the evidence I have fairly strongly indicates is that when I step into an airplane, I'm not going to die.
As I recall, CS Lewis once defined it as "believing something based on the evidence/logic in the face of irrational doubt" (paraphrased.) I've always preferred that meaning myself, as it retains the positive connotations. Presumably what you describe would be "blind faith".
-- C.S. Lewis
-- John Heywood
The optimal solution seems to be one cook with many hands.
You're not the first to have that insight :)
The parallelizability of tasks depends on the task.
Well, Jayson's quote mostly applies to menial labor, whereas yours applies to creative work.
The trick with contradictory proverbs is knowing the domain of applicability of each.
Try it on your deep meta-truth as a self-consistency test
Yes, that's what I was suggesting. I presumed simplicio was pointing out that proverbs are not a good source of rationality advice because they are contradictory and I was trying to use a similar style of quote to continue making that point, but I suppose there is also a less charitable reading.
Consider the following statements:
"It is the hallmark of any shallow truth that its negation is also a shallow truth."
"It is the hallmark of any deep lie that its negation is also a deep lie."
"It is the hallmark of any shallow lie that its negation is also a shallow lie."
"It is the hallmark of any deep truth that its negation is not a deep truth."
These are not inconsistent. The former is about the amount of effort required per person, while the later is about the absolute quality of the final product.
-- Marilyn Manson
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." -L. Wittgenstein
(Apologies if this quote has been in a previous month -- I'm a new user to LW -- but I had to include it since a) pretty brevity and b) so perfect for the Internets!)
Already included in http://lesswrong.com/lw/dei/rationality_quotes_july_2012/6ydf - it's also so famous a line that I would hesitate to include it even if it weren't embedded in an existing quote.
--Richard K. Morgan, Woken Furies