Rationality Quotes March 2013

9 Post author: Jayson_Virissimo 02 March 2013 10:45AM
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  • Do not quote yourself.
  • Do not quote from Less Wrong itself, Overcoming Bias, or HPMoR.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.

Comments (341)

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 01 March 2013 03:42:09PM 54 points [-]

Remember the exercises in critical reading you did in school, where you had to look at a piece of writing and step back and ask whether the author was telling the whole truth? If you really want to be a critical reader, it turns out you have to step back one step further, and ask not just whether the author is telling the truth, but why he's writing about this subject at all.

-- Paul Graham

Comment author: satt 04 March 2013 12:42:11AM 50 points [-]

There’s an old saying in the public opinion business: we can’t tell people what to think, but we can tell them what to think about.

— Doug Henwood

Comment author: wedrifid 04 March 2013 04:35:43AM 5 points [-]

This one is excellent! Thankyou satt! (Almost disappointing that it was 'wasted' as a mere reply.)

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 01 March 2013 06:23:40PM 5 points [-]

This is one lesson I think The Last Psychiatrist is good at teaching.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 02 March 2013 11:21:31PM 8 points [-]

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?

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 04 March 2013 09:05:19AM *  5 points [-]

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.

Comment author: harshhpareek 03 March 2013 08:05:37PM *  24 points [-]

The world of the manager is one of problems and opportunities. Problems are to be managed; one must understand the nature of the problem, amass resources adequate to deal with it, and "work the problem" on an ongoing basis.[...] But what if the problem can be fixed? This is not the domain of the manager.

An engineer believes most problems have solutions. The engineer isn't interested in building an organisation to cope with the problem. [...] And yet the engineer's faith in fixes often blinds him to the fact that many problems, especially those involving people, don't have the kind of complete permanent solutions he seeks.

-- John Walker, The Hacker's Diet (~loc 250 on an e-reader)

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 12 March 2013 05:07:31AM 23 points [-]

The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.

-- George Bernard Shaw

Comment author: RobinZ 12 March 2013 07:26:24PM 4 points [-]

Related: Wiio's laws.

Comment author: gwern 25 March 2013 04:34:04PM 3 points [-]
Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 27 March 2013 04:55:17AM 2 points [-]

Hmm. I think I know what you meant to convey by linking to that, but... do I really?

Comment author: gwern 27 March 2013 02:28:00PM 2 points [-]

'That's a great relief to me,' McKie said. And he wondered: What did he really mean by that? This thought elicited another, and McKie said: 'Whenever I run into this problem of communication between species I'm reminded of an old culture/teaching story.'

'Oh?' Bolin registered polite curiosity.

'Two practitioners of the art of mental healing, so the story goes, passed each other every morning on their way to their respective offices. They knew each other, but weren't on intimate terms. One morning as they approached each other, one of them turned to the other and said, 'Good morning.' The one greeted failed to respond, but continued toward his office. Presently, though he stopped, turned and stared at the retreating back of the man who'd spoken, musing to himself: 'Now, what did he really mean by that?'''

Bolin began to chuckle, then laugh. His laughter grew louder and louder until he was holding his sides.

It wasn't that funny, McKie thought.

--Frank Herbert, "The Tactful Saboteur"

Comment author: Alicorn 02 March 2013 01:07:37AM 20 points [-]

...these things are possible. And because they're possible we have to think of them so they don't surprise us later. We have to think of them so that if the worst does come, we'll already know how to live in that universe.

-- Miro, in Xenocide by Orson Scott Card

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 02 March 2013 08:16:01PM 8 points [-]

I assume "possible" in this context means "with probability higher than epsilon". Otherwise, there are too many possible things not worth thinking about.

Comment author: Alicorn 02 March 2013 09:58:42PM 2 points [-]

Right.

Comment author: Stabilizer 02 March 2013 12:54:40AM 40 points [-]

You know something is important when you're willing to let someone else take the credit if that's what it takes to get it done.

-Seth Godin

Comment author: simplicio 04 March 2013 11:36:56PM 12 points [-]

A leader is best when people barely know that he exists, not so good when people obey and acclaim him, worst when they despise him. Fail to honor people, They fail to honor you. But of a good leader, who talks little, when his work is done, his aims fulfilled, they will all say, "We did this ourselves."

Tao Te Ching

Comment author: lew2048 04 March 2013 02:48:49AM 6 points [-]

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

Comment author: Pfft 04 March 2013 05:29:37PM *  8 points [-]

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)

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 05 March 2013 01:35:29AM 29 points [-]

Somehow it seems appropriate that it's hard to track down the originator of this idea.

Comment author: Neotenic 04 March 2013 02:45:01AM 3 points [-]

Could we use "threshold for letting someone else take credit" as a signal for altruism?

Comment author: ModusPonies 04 March 2013 07:12:50PM 5 points [-]

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.

Comment author: [deleted] 12 March 2013 11:51:54PM 13 points [-]

"If you don't know what you want," the doorman said, "you end up with a lot you don't."

― Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club

Comment author: jsbennett86 02 March 2013 04:31:22AM 33 points [-]

On the presentation of science in the news:

It's not that clean energy will never happen -- it totally will. It's just that it won't come from a wild-haired scientist running out of his basement screaming, "Eureka! I've discovered how to get limitless clean energy from common seawater!" Instead, it will come from thousands of scientists publishing unreadable studies with titles like "Assessing Effectiveness and Costs of Asymmetrical Methods of Beryllium Containment in Gen 4 Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors When Factoring for Cromulence Decay." The world will be saved by a series of boring, incremental advances that chip away at those technical challenges one tedious step at a time.

But nobody wants to read about that in their morning Web browsing. We want to read that while we were sleeping, some unlikely hero saved the world. Or at least cured cancer.

David Wong — 5 Easy Ways to Spot a BS News Story on the Internet

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 02 March 2013 07:48:59PM 13 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Elithrion 03 March 2013 12:41:04AM *  7 points [-]

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.)

Comment author: somervta 03 March 2013 02:19:20AM *  5 points [-]

Well, that very same Cracked article has this to say:

So if you actually Google the subject of the clean energy link above (in this case, thorium nuclear reactors) instead of, say, instantly forwarding it to all of your friends, you will be immediately kicked in the balls by Wikipedia's giant wall of text describing the many problems with the technology.

"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.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 03 March 2013 04:36:06PM 8 points [-]

Those are not very impressive disadvantages.

Comment author: Sengachi 03 March 2013 11:32:53PM 6 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Desrtopa 04 March 2013 12:08:23PM *  11 points [-]

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.

Comment author: MLS 05 March 2013 04:10:49AM 11 points [-]

"Or, well..."

Was that subtle framing intentional?

Comment author: adam_strandberg 03 March 2013 05:19:50AM 2 points [-]

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

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 03 March 2013 04:36:51PM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 03 March 2013 04:57:45PM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 03 March 2013 05:04:02PM 6 points [-]

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.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 04 March 2013 10:33:24AM *  2 points [-]

"Coordination problems are hard."

Yes, I agree. I don't understand the surprise, though.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 04 March 2013 12:24:26AM 6 points [-]

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.

Comment author: James_K 04 March 2013 04:06:56AM 7 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Izeinwinter 03 March 2013 06:22:02PM 4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 March 2013 08:58:49PM *  2 points [-]
Comment author: tingram 10 March 2013 05:57:14PM 10 points [-]

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

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 27 March 2013 04:59:12AM 1 point [-]

I think people would keep roulette tables more, so to speak, in the US if gambling weren't so heavily regulated here.

Comment author: Cthulhoo 04 March 2013 04:50:35PM *  9 points [-]

Luck, when it's regular, it's called skill. (Il culo, quando è sistematico, si chiama classe)

Nereo Rocco

(I tried a rough tranlsation, but it sounds way better in Italian)

Comment author: wedrifid 05 March 2013 07:12:36AM 2 points [-]

I like this translation better than the version where it was translated to 'class'. Good change. (Unless my memory is failing me...)

Comment author: Cthulhoo 05 March 2013 08:47:38AM 2 points [-]

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).

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 01 March 2013 09:19:48AM 34 points [-]

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.

-- Thomas Sowell

Comment author: FiftyTwo 09 March 2013 02:23:23PM 7 points [-]

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way...

I can imagine one easily. Where they have an active incentive to be wrong.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 01 March 2013 08:53:08PM 14 points [-]

Interesting to contrast the connotation with:

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who gain nothing from being right.

Or:

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who have no strong reason to prefer the world in which their decisions are right, over the world in which they are wrong.

Comment author: Alejandro1 01 March 2013 11:33:32PM 6 points [-]

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.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 01 March 2013 11:50:22PM 7 points [-]

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".

Comment author: Tuna-Fish 08 March 2013 06:17:59PM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: [deleted] 09 March 2013 04:51:33PM 3 points [-]

I dunno -- Yvain here seems to have a good point:

If a doctor uses the established thresholds and refers a patient to surgery that turns out to be unnecessary, there are laws preventing that patient from suing her. The same is true if all the tests came back below the threshold, she said he was fine, and he later turned out to be super unlucky and have a totally undetectable form of cancer. The doctor did everything right. She just got unlucky. Those laws are really good. If they didn't exist, it would either be impossible to practice medicine, or else doctors would be optimizing for not being sued rather than for doing good medicine even more than they already are. If they only existed in one direction (eg doctors who did unnecessary surgeries couldn't be sued, but doctors who missed cancer could), that would be even worse - any doctor not heroic enough to go against her own self-interest would refer every patient to surgery.

[emphasis as in the original]

Comment author: philh 01 March 2013 07:14:03PM *  29 points [-]

"Luck" is useless as a strategy and "Hard work" is mostly useless. Prefer "Discover rules then systematically exploit them."

- patio11

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 02 March 2013 01:53:25AM *  27 points [-]

"I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd-Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician and a solipsist, her surprise surprised me.”

Bertrand Russell

Comment author: mwengler 14 March 2013 05:57:24PM 6 points [-]

I was the only student in my high school graduating class that wasn't unique.

Comment author: Kawoomba 14 March 2013 06:31:06PM 2 points [-]

Works for a class size of 1, in a way.

Comment author: blacktrance 14 March 2013 01:49:11AM 6 points [-]

Solipsism is my problem and mine alone.

Comment author: [deleted] 01 March 2013 06:18:01PM 26 points [-]

Shouldn't "it works like a charm" be said about things that don't work?

Jason Roy

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 01 March 2013 08:45:09PM 28 points [-]

It should be said about things that appear to work because of confirmation bias.

Comment author: Multiheaded 22 March 2013 05:24:34PM *  6 points [-]

Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak, and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws.

John Adams, US President

Related

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 16 March 2013 02:06:04AM 6 points [-]

Hasn't common sense been wrong before? Of course. But how do people show that a common sense view is wrong? By demonstrating a conflict with other views even more firmly grounded in common sense. The strongest scientific evidence can always be rejected if you're willing to say, "Our senses deceive us" or "Memory is never reliable" or "All the scientists have conspired to trick us." The only problem with these foolproof intellectual defenses is... that... they're... absurd.

--Bryan Caplan

Comment author: shokwave 05 March 2013 09:17:16AM 16 points [-]

On consciousness:

"Forget about minds," he told her. "Say you've got a device designed to monitor—oh, cosmic rays, say. What happens when you turn its sensor around so it's not pointing at the sky anymore, but at its own guts?"

He answered himself before she could: "It does what it's built to. It measures cosmic rays, even though it's not looking at them any more. It parses its own circuitry in terms of cosmic-ray metaphors, because those feel right, because they feel natural, because it can't look at things any other way. But it's the wrong metaphor. So the system misunderstands everything about itself. Maybe that's not a grand and glorious evolutionary leap after all. Maybe it's just a design flaw."

-- Blindsight, by Peter Watts

Comment author: MugaSofer 06 March 2013 09:53:32AM 6 points [-]

It parses its own circuitry in terms of cosmic-ray metaphors

If it treats everything it sees as a cosmic-ray, it's a pretty terrible cosmic-ray sensor.

Comment author: Endovior 06 March 2013 08:54:58PM 3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Antadil 02 March 2013 11:18:53PM *  21 points [-]

I remember asking a wise man, once,

'Why do men fear the dark?'

'Because darkness' he told me, 'is ignorance made visible.'

'And do men despise ignorance?', I asked.

'No!', he said, 'they prize it above all things - all things! - but only so long as it remains invisible.'

– R. Scott Bakker: The Judging Eye

Comment author: TeMPOraL 27 March 2013 11:04:42AM 5 points [-]

That's something that I think laypeople never realize about computer science - it's all really simple things, but combined together at such a scale and pace that in a few decades we've done the equivalent of building a cat from scratch out of DNA. Big complex things really can be built out of extremely simple parts, and we're doing it all the time, but for a lot of people our technology is indistinguishable from magic.

-- wtallis

Comment author: [deleted] 13 March 2013 06:38:13PM 4 points [-]

The Fremen were supreme in that quality the ancients called "spannungsbogen"--which is the self-imposed delay between desire for a thing and the act of reaching out to grasp that thing.

--Frank Herbert, Dune

Comment author: gwern 25 March 2013 02:46:37PM 4 points [-]

I have a funny story about that quote...

Comment author: tingram 10 March 2013 05:50:50PM 10 points [-]

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

Comment author: lukeprog 29 March 2013 08:20:56AM *  9 points [-]

I... believe the experimentalists when they say the world works in a completely different way than I thought it did... All I want to know is: What went wrong with my intuition? How should I fix it, to put it more in line with what the experiments found? How could I have reasoned, such that the actual behavior of the world wouldn't have surprised me so much?

Scott Aaronson

Comment author: TimS 04 March 2013 02:33:55PM 13 points [-]

Any positive social quality -- looks, smarts, cash, power, whatever -- makes people want to compete for your attention. Some of these people are going to be assholes operating under the mistaken impression that you are a vending machine, and that if they feed you enough suck-up coins, you will dispense whatever it is they want. If you have no idea that you have Quality X that they want from you, then you have no chance of figuring out that the reason they're getting so overbearing is that you're not giving them all the X they think they deserve. People can get remarkably angry when you don't give them the thing you have no idea they're asking for. And then they get angrier if you try to tell them you're confused.

Arabella Flynn

Comment author: Kawoomba 01 March 2013 08:34:41PM 13 points [-]

Wenn der Hahn kräht auf dem Mist, dann ändert sich das Wetter, oder es bleibt wie es ist.

(When the rooster crows on the dungheap, then the weather will change, or stay as it is)

-- German weather lore / farmers' rule

Comment author: Alejandro1 03 March 2013 11:35:51PM 5 points [-]
Comment author: Eugine_Nier 02 March 2013 07:42:55AM 12 points [-]

You can't possibly get a good technology going without an enormous number of failures. It's a universal rule. If you look at bicycles, there were thousands of weird models built and tried before they found the one that really worked. You could never design a bicycle theoretically. Even now, after we've been building them for 100 years, it's very difficult to understand just why a bicycle works – it's even difficult to formulate it as a mathematical problem. But just by trial and error, we found out how to do it, and the error was essential.

-- Freeman Dyson

Comment author: shminux 02 March 2013 08:52:56AM *  16 points [-]

But just by trial and error, we found out how to do it, and the error was essential.

No, the trial was.

Comment author: Neotenic 04 March 2013 02:58:12AM 5 points [-]

The error was epiphenomenal.

Comment author: B_For_Bandana 02 March 2013 07:43:23PM *  6 points [-]

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.

Comment author: wedrifid 04 March 2013 08:47:45AM *  7 points [-]

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.

Comment author: shminux 02 March 2013 09:12:24PM 6 points [-]

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...

Comment author: Stabilizer 02 March 2013 12:58:40AM *  26 points [-]

“Anything left on your bucket list?”

“Not dying...”

-Bill Gates in his AMA on reddit.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 March 2013 03:11:01PM *  13 points [-]

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.

Comment author: beoShaffer 04 March 2013 06:34:53AM 7 points [-]

If something is true, no amount of wishful thinking can undo it.

-Dawkins Into to the 30th anniversary edition of the Selfish Gene.

Comment author: incariol 18 March 2013 07:47:03PM 6 points [-]

Choice of attention - to pay attention to this and ignore that - is to the inner life what choice of action is to the outer. In both cases, a man is responsible for his choice and must accept the consequences, whatever they may be.

W. H. Auden

Comment author: arborealhominid 14 March 2013 12:24:17AM 5 points [-]

There’s a funny irony in “tell your story” and “speak your truth”, in that those two things are fundamentally at odds with each other. Stories and narratives aren’t, and can’t be, the truth of our actual lived experiences. Real lives don’t follow the structures of narrative, they don’t move in linear tidy sequences of causes and actions and effects and consequences. Real lives are big jumbled messes that are almost impossible to make real sense of, and the act of imposing a narrative on them, sorting out our “life story”, is always an act of editing.

-Natalie Reed

Comment author: ShannonFriedman 06 March 2013 05:26:30PM 5 points [-]

Something a friend said that made sense in context that really cracked me up:

"I'm decidedly aware of unknown unknowns."

Comment author: [deleted] 03 March 2013 10:40:01PM *  7 points [-]

Some people are moved to "change the world" by compassion; some people look for beauty. I'm just confused, and I want to get clear.

celandine13

Comment author: Neotenic 04 March 2013 03:07:50AM 2 points [-]

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?

Comment author: simplicio 04 March 2013 11:24:11PM 4 points [-]

Only if there were no uncertainty about what "better" meant.

Comment author: B_For_Bandana 05 March 2013 11:54:58PM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: iDante 06 March 2013 12:00:38AM 2 points [-]

Let us, then, avoid the philosophical minefields of belief and truth, and pay attention to what we really need, which is predictive ability.

From a great book

Comment author: simplicio 06 March 2013 06:47:52PM 3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: gwern 02 March 2013 02:22:07AM 11 points [-]

If someone does not believe in fairies, he does not need to teach his children 'There are no fairies'; he can omit to teach them the word 'fairy'.

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?)

Comment author: Kawoomba 02 March 2013 06:24:36AM 19 points [-]

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.

Comment author: wedrifid 02 March 2013 12:40:13PM 11 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 02 March 2013 03:49:55PM 5 points [-]

That's what Santa Claus is for.

Comment author: wedrifid 02 March 2013 12:37:54PM 3 points [-]

If someone does not believe in fairies, he does not need to teach his children 'There are no fairies'; he can omit to teach them the word 'fairy'.

There are downsides to keeping one's children sheltered. Eventually they are going to encounter the rest of the world.

Comment author: BlazeOrangeDeer 04 March 2013 02:26:24AM 6 points [-]

Down voted for unnecessary rot13

Comment author: tgb 04 March 2013 03:44:13PM 5 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 02 March 2013 07:44:54AM 2 points [-]

Ubj znal ovgf jbhyq gung gnxr naq jurer jbhyq lbh trg gurz,

The same place the belief in fairies originally came from. Humans' tendency to anthropomorphize.

Comment author: gwern 02 March 2013 03:53:20PM 7 points [-]

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'.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 01 March 2013 06:59:16PM 8 points [-]

"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)

Comment author: [deleted] 01 March 2013 07:02:25PM 3 points [-]

Spoilers!

Comment author: MarkusRamikin 04 March 2013 06:47:24PM 1 point [-]

What's the rationality-related moral?

Comment author: BlazeOrangeDeer 05 March 2013 01:52:01PM *  5 points [-]

I'm sorry, I want to be with someone more interesting, someone who just does something wild and lets the chips fall where they may!

I plan to never take any action toward fulfilling any of my hopes and dreams. What could possibly be riskier than that?

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal

Comment author: CronoDAS 05 March 2013 05:49:55PM 4 points [-]

I plan to never take any action toward fulfilling any of my hopes and dreams. What could possibly be riskier than that?

Not having hopes and dreams?

Comment author: scav 07 March 2013 11:52:58AM 5 points [-]

Then what are you risking?

Comment author: CronoDAS 10 March 2013 04:23:18AM *  2 points [-]

As I once quoted:

You got to have a dream,
If you don't have a dream,
How you gonna have a dream come true?

-- "Happy Talk", South Pacific

Comment author: Alejandro1 01 March 2013 03:36:40PM *  11 points [-]

I once had a civil argument with [someone], in which I laid out my position in the usual way: “Premiss + premiss + premiss = conclusion.” She responded: “Well, that’s your opinion; you have yours, and I have mine.” I pointed out that no, I wasn’t asserting an opinion, I was making an argument based on facts and logic. Either my facts are wrong, or my logic is. She looked at me like I had lost my mind.

--Rod Dreher

(Post slightly edited in response to comments below)

Comment author: summerstay 04 March 2013 01:56:06PM *  10 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 05 March 2013 01:32:07AM 4 points [-]

Also, in the past the people you were trying to convince were likely to be better educated.

Comment author: ChristianKl 06 March 2013 12:07:20AM 2 points [-]

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.

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.

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 01 March 2013 06:18:59PM *  10 points [-]

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.)

Comment author: Alejandro1 01 March 2013 07:17:56PM 14 points [-]

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".

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 01 March 2013 08:34:43PM *  8 points [-]

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."

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 02 March 2013 07:27:38AM 4 points [-]

Unfortunately, a lot of people have taken to using these kinds of deflective moves to protect their irrational beliefs.

Comment author: wedrifid 01 March 2013 07:10:20PM 4 points [-]

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.

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.

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 01 March 2013 08:42:52PM *  8 points [-]

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.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 March 2013 12:06:35PM 4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Emily 02 March 2013 12:52:25PM 4 points [-]

The below discussion is why "person" is such a useful feminist word.

Comment author: shminux 01 March 2013 06:00:54PM 0 points [-]

The quote sounds stereotyping/sexist, though the article it's quoted from isn't.

Comment author: Alejandro1 01 March 2013 06:05:28PM 4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: dspeyer 01 March 2013 07:55:35PM 29 points [-]

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.

Comment author: philh 01 March 2013 07:09:20PM 15 points [-]

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.)

Comment author: fubarobfusco 01 March 2013 08:46:06PM *  10 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Desrtopa 02 March 2013 02:17:08AM 7 points [-]

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.

Comment author: jooyous 02 March 2013 02:50:27AM *  4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 02 March 2013 04:07:06AM *  8 points [-]

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!

Comment author: Creutzer 01 March 2013 07:26:28PM *  4 points [-]

Another data point: I had the very same experience (including not endorsing the feeling - I actually was a bit embarrassed).

Comment author: Alejandro1 01 March 2013 07:38:22PM 4 points [-]

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?

Comment author: shminux 01 March 2013 09:24:55PM 6 points [-]

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.

Comment author: jooyous 02 March 2013 04:56:03AM *  5 points [-]

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.)

Comment author: [deleted] 02 March 2013 12:28:54PM 2 points [-]

I think you could change "a woman" to "[someone]" using those editorial bracket things and the pronouns won't be weird.

That's probably what I've done, too.

(I also feel like you get a similar effect if you change "woman" to "lady" and I have no idea why.)

(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.)

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 05 March 2013 12:26:10AM 12 points [-]

Popular evopsych, summed up: "Men and women are different. Humans and chimps are the same."

Cliff Pervocracy

Comment author: SaidAchmiz 05 March 2013 02:32:38AM 11 points [-]

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.

Comment author: wedrifid 05 March 2013 11:47:05AM *  9 points [-]

Popular evopsych, summed up: "Men and women are different. Humans and chimps are the same."

Cliff Pervocracy

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.

Comment author: MugaSofer 06 March 2013 09:41:11AM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Nornagest 06 March 2013 09:49:53AM *  3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: TraderJoe 06 March 2013 08:36:42AM 2 points [-]

Can you add a NSFW disclaimer?

Comment author: TimS 05 March 2013 12:30:30AM 1 point [-]

Much more from the same author.

Comment author: B_For_Bandana 02 March 2013 01:44:56AM *  7 points [-]

"Where'd they go?" said Wensley.

WHERE THEY BELONG, said Death, still holding Adam's gaze. WHERE THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN. BACK IN THE MINDS OF MAN.

He grinned at Adam.

There was a tearing sound. Death's robe split and his wings unfolded. Angel's wings. But not of feathers. They were wings of night, wings that were shapes cut through the matter of creation into the darkness underneath, in which a few distant lights glimmered, lights that may have been stars or may have been something entirely else.

BUT I, he said, AM NOT LIKE THEM. I AM AZRAEL, CREATED TO BE CREATION'S SHADOW. YOU CANNOT DESTROY ME. THAT WOULD DESTROY THE WORLD.

The heat of their stare faded. Adam scratched his nose.

“Oh, I don’t know,” he said. “There might be a way.” He grinned back.

  • Good Omens, Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett.
Comment author: Eugine_Nier 05 March 2013 02:23:10AM 5 points [-]

In every transaction with an airline there are two customers. The first is the one who buys the ticket. He wants the best deal and is willing to go to another web site to save ten bucks. The second is the customer who shows up and acts as if he bought first class.

-- David Henderson quoting a flight attendant

Comment author: wedrifid 05 March 2013 07:15:55PM 2 points [-]

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...)

Comment author: ModusPonies 01 March 2013 11:46:18AM 8 points [-]

"You are technically correct—the best kind of correct."

-Futurama

Comment author: lukeprog 27 March 2013 03:58:05AM 3 points [-]

Don't solve the solved problems.

Arman Suleimenov

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 27 March 2013 04:52:11AM 2 points [-]

Sounds good! Now if only I knew which problems were solved...

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 03 March 2013 04:02:01PM 3 points [-]

"You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way." - Tom Willhite

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 03 March 2013 10:45:46PM 10 points [-]

The wise man must have an awful lot of time on his hands, or else not come across many new ideas...

Comment author: whowhowho 03 March 2013 11:31:59PM 12 points [-]

If you're here, you've got time.

Comment author: Randy_M 04 March 2013 07:07:58PM *  2 points [-]

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. )

Comment author: katydee 01 March 2013 10:32:18AM *  5 points [-]

Rule number one of life: Don't get mad at video games. Corollary to rule number one: Life is a video game.

-Matt Vana

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 01 March 2013 02:52:13PM 16 points [-]

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?

Comment author: DaFranker 01 March 2013 03:01:19PM *  30 points [-]

And what the hell is all this pay-to-win microtransaction crap? Life's devs should change their business model.

Comment author: MixedNuts 01 March 2013 11:25:04PM 15 points [-]

Yeah, but have you seen the graphics? And the NPC AI? I think the physics engine might be buggy though.

Comment author: faul_sname 11 March 2013 10:22:34PM 5 points [-]

The graphics and sound are great when they work, but they seem to be out a solid third of the time.

Comment author: BillyOblivion 02 March 2013 04:46:47AM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 02 March 2013 04:50:26AM 5 points [-]

I think you've misread the comment. DaFranker is already talking about RL.

Comment author: BillyOblivion 02 March 2013 04:45:45AM 4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 02 March 2013 12:59:29PM *  4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: shminux 01 March 2013 06:17:50PM 5 points [-]

Seems like a face-lift of "Don't Sweat the Small Stuff ... and it's all small stuff".

Comment author: Cthulhoo 01 March 2013 01:27:20PM *  3 points [-]

Also

Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive.

Elbert Hubbard

Comment author: [deleted] 01 March 2013 06:16:52PM 3 points [-]

Trusting choices made by the same brain that turns my hot 9th grade teacher into a knife-bearing possum at the last second every damn night.

Sean Thomason

Comment author: AlexMennen 01 March 2013 04:41:37PM *  3 points [-]

The brick walls are not there to keep us out; the brick walls are there to give us a chance to show how badly we want something. The brick walls are there to stop the people who don't want it badly enough. They are there to stop the other people.

Randy Pausch in The Last Lecture.

Comment author: zslastman 01 March 2013 05:36:53PM 5 points [-]

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.

Comment author: AlexMennen 02 March 2013 02:12:56AM 5 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Jakeness 02 March 2013 06:55:49PM 3 points [-]

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?

Comment author: Estarlio 29 March 2013 06:13:11AM *  3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 01 March 2013 06:22:36PM 2 points [-]

What are the brick walls? Who put them there? I don't get it.

Comment author: AlexMennen 02 March 2013 02:12:02AM 6 points [-]

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.

Comment author: tingram 10 March 2013 05:44:53PM *  2 points [-]

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

Comment author: EndlessEnigma 02 March 2013 08:15:48PM *  2 points [-]

"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

Comment author: B_For_Bandana 04 March 2013 01:56:44AM 4 points [-]

What's the context here? Many kinds of experiments are repeatable after all.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 01 March 2013 07:34:10PM 2 points [-]

Within five minutes of the Singularity appearing, someone will suggest defragging it.

Comment author: gwern 01 March 2013 08:04:29PM 3 points [-]

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?

Comment author: fubarobfusco 01 March 2013 08:40:49PM 11 points [-]

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.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 01 March 2013 08:11:34PM *  2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 02 March 2013 07:35:19AM 5 points [-]

Admittedly, rebooting works surprisingly often (especially on Windows).

Comment author: Baruta07 03 March 2013 04:03:47PM 3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: satt 20 March 2013 11:16:24PM 2 points [-]

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.

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...

Sometimes an apparently faulty circuit board starts to work again when it is unplugged and plugged back in again. Engineers call this a "no-problem-found" job. Frictional polymers are bound loosely to the boards, so a smart tap can be enough to clear the problem, in the same way that a thump to an errant TV or video often fixes the fault.

(From a 1997 New Scientist article (PDF).)

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 01 March 2013 08:08:44PM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: ciphergoth 02 March 2013 11:12:49AM 11 points [-]

Not sure I see that - this is about how non-computer people think about computers, not about the real behaviour of a real singularity.

Comment author: samath 05 March 2013 02:46:03AM 2 points [-]

In an article proclaiming the transcendent use of complicated, modern statistics in baseball, and in particular, one called "WAR" (wins above replacement):

I'm not a mathematician and I'm not a scientist. I'm a guy who tries to understand baseball with common sense. In this era, that means embracing advanced metrics that I don't really understand. That should make me a little uncomfortable, and it does. WAR is a crisscrossed mess of routes leading toward something that, basically, I have to take on faith.

And faith is irrational and anti-intellectual, right? Faith is for rain dances and sun gods, for spirituality but not science. Actually, no. Faith is how we organize a complicated modern world. Faith is what you have when your doctor walks in with a syringe filled with something that could be anything and tells you that it'll keep you from getting the measles. Unless you're a doctor or a medical scientist, you don't really understand vaccines, and you certainly can't brew one up at home. You have outsourced the intellectual side of your health to people who, your faith reassures you, are smarter than you. Maybe in one way of looking at it you're not as smart as your great-great-great-grandparents were, because they had to take responsibility for cooking their own medicine. But you'll live longer. The complicated nature of WAR, your inability to touch the guts of it, isn't an argument against it. That's just what human advancement looks like in the 21st century. And if you can accept that you can walk into a tube built out of 100 tons of aluminum, fly seven miles off the ground and land safely thousands of miles away, you can accept WAR.

Comment author: JQuinton 11 March 2013 03:45:15PM 6 points [-]

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.

Comment author: MinibearRex 05 March 2013 05:51:10AM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: MugaSofer 06 March 2013 10:03:27AM 2 points [-]

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".

Comment author: Scottbert 10 March 2013 06:29:27PM *  10 points [-]

Faith is holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.

-- C.S. Lewis

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 01 March 2013 08:57:03AM *  2 points [-]

Many hands make light work.

-- John Heywood

Comment author: simplicio 01 March 2013 02:28:48PM 10 points [-]

Too many cooks spoil the broth.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 01 March 2013 03:37:40PM 60 points [-]

Many hands make light work.

Too many cooks spoil the broth.

The optimal solution seems to be one cook with many hands.

Comment author: PaulS 02 March 2013 09:42:03PM 4 points [-]

You're not the first to have that insight :)

Comment author: sketerpot 02 March 2013 10:07:53PM 10 points [-]
Comment author: Eugine_Nier 02 March 2013 07:12:56AM 9 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 01 March 2013 08:40:02PM 10 points [-]

It is the hallmark of any deep truth that its negation is also a deep truth.

Comment author: shminux 01 March 2013 09:15:12PM *  6 points [-]

Try it on your deep meta-truth as a self-consistency test

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 01 March 2013 09:24:17PM *  7 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Armok_GoB 02 March 2013 10:14:15PM *  4 points [-]

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."

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 02 March 2013 01:24:24AM *  2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: jooyous 02 March 2013 09:07:33AM *  1 point [-]

So ask yourself before you get in [...] is there room in your life for one more breakdown?

-- Marilyn Manson

Comment author: Puredoxyk 02 March 2013 05:31:19PM 1 point [-]

"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!)

Comment author: gwern 02 March 2013 05:54:51PM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: PaynenDiaz 13 March 2013 04:32:11PM *  1 point [-]

"...even she can't make her own actions fit with what she thinks she is. She's confused about her own motivations."

"So? Welcome to the human fucking race."

--Richard K. Morgan, Woken Furies