Comment author: HalMorris 30 December 2012 03:42:48AM 0 points [-]

There is quite a bit of movement in hunting, and frequently of flushing out the animal. When you see or hear the animal, then you might freeze. Did a twig snap in the refrigerator?

Comment author: Alex_Kennedy 06 April 2015 10:49:30PM 0 points [-]

If you do not have sight of your quarry but you suspect it to be in the area then you'll probably freeze. Animals, humans included, are excellent at spotting motion. Of course, both of our ideas are essentially baseless, I think we'd have a clearer picture if someone performed Eliezer's study (or similar).

In response to Joy in Discovery
Comment author: Wei_Dai 23 February 2010 01:42:27AM 7 points [-]

It is attested by numerous sources that this experience, being the first person to solve a major mystery, is a tremendous high.

I would guess that most people who feel this high haven't really solved a major mystery, but just think that they did, because for every person who truly solves a big mystery, there are many others who erroneously think that they did. For me, whenever I think I may have solved some problem, I'm always worried that I have made a mistake in my reasoning somewhere, and it takes days to years to convince myself that I was right after all, so I never really get that big momentary high. (One exception is when I'm doing crypto optimization, where I can easily verify the correctness of some idea just by benchmarking the resulting code.)

I think I'm motivated to work on a problem mostly because I want to get rid of a feeling of confusion, and I'd be happy to let others do the work for me and just learn from textbooks. So I'm quite alarmed at Eliezer's suggestion that in the future, knowledge should be hidden from people to make their life more fun.

In response to comment by Wei_Dai on Joy in Discovery
Comment author: Alex_Kennedy 06 April 2015 04:40:13PM 0 points [-]

When I was in primary school (year 5 or 6) I struck upon the idea that humans could have variable perceptions. My friend, Charlie, had colour blindness, I did not know what this meant and assumed after a cursory explanation that he mistook red for green and green for red. Being a relatively inquisitive kid I struck upon a problem immediately and could not work out how he'd ever know he was colour blind.

It wasn't until later that day I was informed as to how colour blindness works. Still, I felt incredibly clever for several years until I was informed that the problem had been thought of before, I thought I had encountered a true wonder of the human mind for the first time and to me it was a pretty big high especially considering my age.

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 01 January 2008 07:12:32PM 4 points [-]

I wonder if politics is saner in constitutional monarchies, where everyone can tribally identify with the same figurehead, and thus perhaps think a bit more rationally about their elected officials.

Comment author: Alex_Kennedy 25 February 2015 01:53:26PM 0 points [-]

An old comment I know but I thought it should be addressed from the perspective of a native Englishman.

Not really. Political fervour over here certainly appears to be lesser than in the States but partisanship certainly exists strongly...or did...a lot of things are changing and it looks like the UK's two-party politics is rupturing again. History would suggest that soon enough we'll have two 'different' parties to 'choose' between but one can hope that everything might change.

Sorry for diverting myself, saner? Maybe a little but not much. Granted, strength of support for the monarchy is...iffy, there are those who tribally oppose the monarchy and those who tribally support it...Perhaps the UK is not the greatest example for this? Any countries where the monarchy or some equivalently unchanging and undemocratic political figurehead(s) are universally (or close to) loved?