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

Comment author: [deleted] 10 April 2015 04:24:39PM 2 points [-]
  1. Headphones, problems solved.

In all fairness though, your scenario suffers from an continunity problem. Did the neighbor pop out of nowhere? I'll go on that possibility because there's a severe continunity problem if not. I'll mention one continunity issue is that the neighbor doens't have to deal only with your music - there's plenty of other things they'd need to avoid. Washing the dishes? Taking a shower? Playing their own music? There's simply too many things that produce a strong enough sound that your music would be equal if not lower than what they can perceive.

Also, ome people here said that you'll be cooperating. I say you're being defecated on. Because their situation simply isn't really going anywhere - everyone MUST go down or else.. wahh, my ears.

Least convinient possible world, where my aforementioned continuty problem is not a problem, I'd say that they still need to cover for themselves - it's still their issue. They certainly need to solve it themselves, fair's fair. That doesn't allow you to be a dick, but I see no reason you should bend down while not getting anything in return.

Comment author: Anomylous 11 April 2015 01:59:31AM 1 point [-]

Headphones, problems solved.

Or hang some fabric on the walls to muffle the sound a bit.

All-around second to this comment. Someone with ears that sensitive probably shouldn't be living in a thin-walled apartment complex.

Comment author: ChristianKl 10 April 2015 03:07:43PM 0 points [-]

All true, just not relevant. I do think there is a serious problem of having too thin skins today and it is not directly relevant to compassion. As late as in the 1960's, in the hippie age, people were listening to Zen Buddhist masters and similar gurus, like Osho, who would telling them you are not helpless with your feelings.

Osho's right hand did run the biggest bioattack on the US at the time. I don't want to live in a world where when someone doesn't like how an election is going to go they try to poison a significant portion of the electorate to keep them at home.

With increased technological capacities, this gets more dangerous.

Todays 25 years old seem to literally think other people control their emotions, other people can make them angry or sad, and from this grave mistake they make their whole system of ethics, they say making others sad or angry is wrong, that it is basically the responsibility of person A how he made person B feel and not person B's responsibility to police his own emotions and so on.

There are certainly people who hold that position but I'm not one of them.

Comment author: Anomylous 11 April 2015 01:55:34AM 1 point [-]

There are certainly people who hold that position but I'm not one of them.

Me either. I wonder if someone's done a study to see if locus of control (internal vs. external) is a cohort effect due to the culture/spiritual teachings of the '60s, or simply age-related, so people who were in their 20's in the 1960's are now self-possessed and don't blame others for their feelings, while current 25-year-olds just haven't had time to learn it (although some may be ahead of the learning curve).

Comment author: ChristianKl 03 April 2015 05:58:05PM 1 point [-]

If we look at:

(1) Becoming a success is a matter of hard work; luck has little or nothing to do with it. (2) Getting a good job mainly depends on being in the right place at the right time.

I don't think this is about birth advantages such as country of origin, high class parents and high IQ.

Comment author: Anomylous 11 April 2015 01:47:19AM 0 points [-]

Birth advantages are basically what set you up to be in the right place at the right time. Maybe you get a job because you met somebody in college. But you had to be born such that you could get to college in the first place.

In any case, success has to be a combination of luck and effort. You might luck into that job, but you wouldn't have been hired if the employer didn't think you had the skills he was after - skills you probably had to work to build. And, once you have the job, you still can't slack off, not if you plan on keeping that job.

Comment author: estimator 10 April 2015 07:20:18PM 3 points [-]

I think of science fiction as of sampling from futures-space; so it doesn't have to be the most probable scenario, just somewhat plausible.

Comment author: Anomylous 11 April 2015 01:29:38AM 3 points [-]

Some works of sci-fi, especially classic works like Orwell's 1984, aren't even in "futures-space" anymore; those exact scenarios are no longer possible. That doesn't decrease their value at all. Science fiction, to me, is less about sampling from futures-space than about asking "what if?" and then telling a story about it.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 19 February 2015 04:47:51PM 4 points [-]

Ah, the sweaty macho fantasyland never gets old. It has been a while since the last time the neoreactionaries posted anything entertaining.

I see parts of mainstream society are now neoreactionary from your point of view.

What social benefit can be gained from legal nose-breaking is beyond my comprehension.

1) its safer than illegal underground boxing clubs 2) physical excersize 3) fun

Not all martial arts result in nose-breaking. Grappling is somewhat safer.

But more to the point, we could go through hobbies you enjoy and argue why they should be made illegal. Do you drink? Do drugs? Have promiscuous anal sex? (1) All of these are dangerous, not that making them illegal would actually stop people doing them.

Or maybe you don't do any of these things. Maybe you live an entirely cerebral life. And that's ok, but it doesn't give you the right to look down your nose at sweaty macho people who enjoy sport.

Simply put, in Maletopia it would suck to be a woman.

Why? Are you claiming that all women hate martial artists? And its explicitly stated that there are lots of tribes, so those who don't like it can just leave.

1) not trying to be homophobic here, straight people can have anal sex too

Comment author: Anomylous 25 February 2015 04:44:24PM *  1 point [-]

Simply put, in Maletopia it would suck to be a woman.

Why?

Women would essentially be second-class citizens - after all, they'd be living in a society designed around men's needs only.

I'm going to make an exception here from my normal practice and speak specifically as a woman: Those raids sound fun! But I'd probably be excluded from most teams. And as far as partners, my ideal partner would be a Mannfolk-type manly-man, who respects me as an equal - something that DeVliegenteHollander doesn't seem to think exists. (Perhaps he's right. If so, that might partially explain my series of pathetic failures at romance.)

Comment author: Anomylous 25 February 2015 03:59:45PM *  1 point [-]

A - I can transpose at sight, but not very quickly. Like grouchymusicologist, I do it using the concept of scale degrees.

B - I suppose it is plausible. But I can't think of any real-life examples. Learning good posture isn't going to hurt any athletic skill you try to develop. Having studied linguistics is only going to help you when you start to learn <random obscure language>.

C - I've never heard of such. Natural systems tend to be pretty intuitive.

D - Artists are the people who understand that what's on the page isn't music. It's just instructions on how to play the music. Theorists are the people who develop the notation, and they have a lot in common with scientists. (Many musicians are both.) Yes, some aspects of music notation and theory are counterintuitive. So are some aspects of mathematics. Plenty of people can do both with a high degree of skill.

Other than that, I don't really know what to tell you - except to use your highly trained mind to come up with ways to practice doing the things that you have problems doing, until you can do them well enough to please yourself.

Comment author: Anomylous 25 February 2015 03:14:59PM 2 points [-]

I have read that blog some, and have tried the cold-showers thing. It's great - in the summertime. Winter came around and I kind of fell off the wagon.

In other applications, hormesis is probably why I don't have issues with stage fright anymore.

Comment author: benkuhn 27 February 2014 04:52:39PM *  2 points [-]

Are you referring to the "Mozart Effect" studies? That's what I found in the book (or at least the parts of the preview that were accessible), but Mozart is actually classical, not baroque. The effect seems to be small and specific to one particular type of task, according to this Nature meta-analysis:

Rauscher et al. 1 reported that listening to ten minutes of Mozart's music increased the abstract reasoning ability of college students, as measured by IQ scores, by 8 or 9 points compared with listening to relaxation instructions or silence, respectively1. This startling finding became known as the 'Mozart effect', and has since been explored by several research groups. Here I use a meta-analysis to demonstrate that any cognitive enhancement is small and does not reflect any change in IQ or reasoning ability in general, but instead derives entirely from performance on one specific type of cognitive task and has a simple neuropsychological explanation.

As a side note, if you're going to cite studies it would be great to continue Romeo's trend of actually linking to the relevant studies, since there's not enough info in your comment to find the ones you're referring to and I don't own Wiseman. I don't really trust Wiseman (or pop-sci books in general) to interpret findings with anything remotely resembling rigor.

Comment author: Anomylous 09 December 2014 10:03:56PM 0 points [-]

Anecdote: My mom once tried to invoke the Mozart effect by putting on his music while me and my sister were doing schoolwork, hoping that it would make us more productive. It had just the opposite effect - we sat there and enjoyed the music, rather than doing our math assignments.

Comment author: shminux 09 December 2014 07:45:48PM *  3 points [-]

Not "when the sun becomes a red giant", because red giants are variable on a much too short time scale, but, as others mentioned, we can probably keep the earth in a habitable zone for another 5 billion years or so. We have more than enough hydrogen on earth to provide the necessary potential energy increase with fusion-based propulsion, though building something like a 100 petaWatt engine is problematic at this point, (for comparison, it is a significant fraction of the total solar radiation hitting the earth).

EDIT: I suspect that terraforming Mars (and/or cooling down the Earth more efficiently when the Sun gets brighter) would require less energy than moving the Earth to the Mars orbit. My calculations could be off, though, hopefully someone can do them independently.

Comment author: Anomylous 09 December 2014 08:31:17PM 4 points [-]

Only major problem I know of with terraforming Mars is how to give it a magnetic field. We'd have to somehow re-melt the interior of the planet. Otherwise, we could just put up with constant intense solar radiation, and atmosphere off-gassing into space. Maybe if we built a big fusion reactor in the middle of the planet...?

In response to Belief in Belief
Comment author: Quarkster 29 November 2009 02:50:06AM 4 points [-]

"Those who find this confusing may find it helpful to study mathematical logic, which trains one to make very sharp distinctions between the proposition P, a proof of P, and a proof that P is provable"

This is a bit of a side question, but wouldn't a proof that P is provable be a proof of P? In fact, it sounds like a particularly elegant form of proof.

In response to comment by Quarkster on Belief in Belief
Comment author: Anomylous 09 December 2014 05:50:52PM 0 points [-]

Outside of mathematics, a statement that is provable is also disprovable. Then it's called a hypothesis.

I'm reminded of the joke where an engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician are going to a job interview. The interviewer has rigged a fire to start in the wastepaper basket, to see how they react in a crisis situation. The engineer sees the fire, sees the water cooler, grabs the water cooler and dumps it on the fire. The physicist sees the fire, sees the water cooler, grabs pencil and paper, calculates the exact amount of water needed to extinguish the fire, then pours that amount of water into the basket, exactly extinguishing the fire. The mathematician sees the fire, sees the water cooler, and says, "Ah! A solution exists!".

View more: Next