= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I am going to disagree with the idea that 'being "intolerant of intolerance"' is inherently inconsistent. The problem is with the word tolerance, which contains multiple meanings. I think that it is morally wrong to discriminate against people for things that they can't change. Believing that someone of a different race can't possibly be intelligent is a moral wrong. Furthermore, it is so indicative of stupidity that I do not wish to associate with such a person, if they are in a culture where theirs is the minority view.To put it another way, to preserve my time and energy, I am going to avoid dealing with people who have some traits, and one of these traits is racism. This does technically mean that I am "intolerant of intolerance." However, given that you are Eliezer Yudkowsky and I am a random HS student, it is likely that you are correct. Could you explain to me why you believe that I am wrong, or how I misinterpreted that.
Don't blame me, I voted for the original comment.
Blame me, because I restarted the chain. I voted this down, because it was not very amusing, and the parent up, because I assume it was an HPMOR reference and that is awesome.
Personal Benefits from Rationality
I saw this and realised something:
"Hey, wait, where have I seen other people talk about specific benefits from Rationality?"
And then I realised I hadn't. I look around the site some. Nothing there.
This is a place to fix that. The idea of this page is to post specific things that you personally have found helpful, that you learned from your studies of Bayescraft. This way we can find some that seem to work for a large number of people, so that when new people start to become interested in Rationality we can "make it rain" so that they see the benefits that come with being less wrong.
For commenters:
If someone posted something already that also worked for you, mention that. If every tactic is apparently used by only a single person, then it is harder for us as a community to figure out what we should recommend to tyros.
List of N Things:
Understanding that my high school history class has more to do with real science than does my Chemistry class let me understand how I should be approaching the problem. History lets you look at what happened and say "Why did this happen" when you view it the right way.
Reading up on cognitive neuroscience taught me that I could use the placebo affect on myself. I have missed one day of school due to illness in my life.
Learning to not propose solutions for a minimum of five minutes, by the clock, has honestly been the most effective thing I have yet learned for personal application at Less Wrong.
May we all share many useful things, for our own benefit and as a place to point tyros towards.
Recently, there were rape allegations cast at Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks. Some people in positions of power saw fit to expose identifying personal information about the accusers to the Internet and therefore, the world at large. This resulted in the accusers receiving numerous death threats and other harassment.
When safety can be destroyed by truth, should it be?
I disagree here with what seems to be an unstated assumption. Namely, that the injunctive "That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" is intended for application to the world. I instead understand it, as I think many here understand it, as applying to beliefs. If I believe something, it should not be false, and if I think it is false, it is a good thing for me to destroy that belief. Furthermore, in debates over religion, politics, and science, truth is the value that should be pursued. But the idea that I must tell the police about a crime a friend committed because "what can be destroyed by the truth, should be" seems absur, and it is not how I or, I think, many others interpret the phrase.
Thanks for letting me know. If you want any help charting a good education, especially a good rationality education, I'd love to talk to you (I just sent you a PM also to that effect, which you can see by clicking on the red mailbox icon next to your name).
Are there any other teenagers on LW who care to reveal themselves?
I am a 16 year old. To be honest, most teens wouldn't handle the site. The requirement for an understanding of mathematics, logic, and science are beyond the reach of most, and the desire of most of the rest. That said, I have introduced two friends of mine to HPMOR and they have taken to it, and I am leading them towards Less Wrong. On the other hand? I don't know how many adults would handle less wrong either. If you want my advice on how to be more appealing to teenagers, it is relatively simple.
Link everything, so that someone who doesn't understand can follow your links and find out. Useful more for teens than for adults, it is still good practice. Few intelligent teens will tolerate a teens area for long.
The experimental evidence for a purely genetic component of 0.6-0.8 is overwhelming
Erm. 0.6-0.8 what?
-Robin
I assume he means an R or an R^2 of 0.6-0.8. Both are measures of correlation. R^2 would be the percent in the variation of one twins intelligence predicted by the intelligence of the other twin.
Do you have something on the difference between Traditional Rationality and Bayescraft?
I am finally taking Prob. & Stats next semester (and have not yet looked at the book to see how Bayes figures into it yet. I am going to be pissed if it doesn't enter into the class at this point), so I figure that I will get my formal introduction to Bayes at that point. However, I do know the Basic P(A|B) = [ P(B|A) P(A) ] / P(B).
And, I can regurgitate Wikipedia's entries on Bayes, yet I don't seem to have any real context into which I can place the difference between Bayes and traditional Probability distributions... Can you help, please?
I am currently taking Stats(AP class in the USA, IB level elsewhere), and hope that I can help.
A traditional probability test will take four frequencies(Male smokers, female smokers, male nonsmokers, and female nonsmokers) and tell you if there is a correlation with an X^2 test.
Bayescraft lets you use gender as a way to predict the likelihood of smoking, or use smoking to predict gender.
The fundamental difference, as far as I can tell, is that Statistics takes results about samples and applies them to populations. Bayescraft takes results about priors and applies them to the future. The two use similar methodology to address fundamentally different questions.
View more: Prev
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
If one is intolerant of intolerance then one is just as intolerant as those that are claimed to be intolerant from which one should not tolerate oneself.
Not wishing to associate with someone is not indicative of being intolerant of them, though assuming they are not intelligent may be.
To make sure we are not arguing over words, Googling "tolerate" returns two definitions. "1. Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference. 2. Accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance."
I am using the second, not the first. I don't see the point of dealing with someone who is explicitly intolerant of a group of people based on no conscious choice of their own, and should have examined their own beliefs, without a very significant reason to do so. This is because they are less likely to have interesting thoughts or experiences, and furthermore I would not feel comfortable dealing with them in many social settings.