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

Comment author: curi 11 November 2017 10:45:13PM *  0 points [-]

There are plenty of system of systems of thought out there and there are opportunity costs to spending energy delving into different systems of thoughts.

This is addressed in Paths Forward. You're just plain ignoring what I said. You aren't engaging with the answers to this that I already provided; you aren't pointing out where my reasoning was mistaken; you're just acting like half my ideas don't exist at all instead of actually arguing with them.

Creating a School of Thought would violate the idea of keeping identity small.

As I explained already, PF is important on an individual basis and you should all individually do it regardless of whether LW does.


Induction was refuted decades ago and you guys aren't updating and don't have a mechanism to become less wrong about this.

Comment author: ChristianKl 11 November 2017 10:59:22PM *  0 points [-]

This is addressed in Paths Forward.

And I told you that you haven't made a case that suggests that it's worth reading.

Induction was refuted decades ago and you guys aren't updating and don't have a mechanism to become less wrong about this.

How do you know that we aren't updating? It seems to me like you are using induction to make that assessment. You observe that we don't update towards your arguments and you conclude that we don't update in general.

Comment author: curi 11 November 2017 10:33:05PM *  0 points [-]

I like Ayn Rand's writing, not whatever you think is a "cult". See e.g. http://curi.us/1930-harry-binswanger-refuses-to-think

If you have an argument about Ayn Rand's ideas, that would be important.

Regardless, you can get correct answers to tons of common questions about Objectivism at a variety of places online (including both pro-ARI and anti-ARI places). That's good. And Binswanger, linked negatively above, engaged with Popperian criticism more than anyone at LW has. He also has combined seriously writing down ideas with discussing ideas, whereas LW people seem to only do much of one or the other, which I think is a big problem.

Comment author: ChristianKl 11 November 2017 10:55:48PM 0 points [-]

Speaking for "objectivism" instead of someone personal opinions implies structures that get people think alike in a cultish way.

Comment author: curi 09 November 2017 12:11:09AM 0 points [-]

if someone spoke for something smaller than LW, e.g. Bayesian Epistemology, that'd be fine. CR and Objectivism, for example, can be questioned and have people who will answer (unlike science itself).

and if someone wanted to take responsibility for gjm-LW or lumifer-LW or some other body of ideas which is theirs alone, that'd be fine too. but people aren't doing this as a group or individually!

Comment author: ChristianKl 11 November 2017 10:14:26PM 0 points [-]

The fact that objectivism has cultists who want to defend the objectivist way isn't a quality that's worthy of emulation. If CR is copying the same group think structures that's also no argument in favor of it either.

Comment author: ChristianKl 11 November 2017 10:04:11PM 1 point [-]

But if no one has done that (so there’s no answer to CR they can endorse), then how do they know CR is mistaken?

There are plenty of system of systems of thought out there and there are opportunity costs to spending energy delving into different systems of thoughts. Nothing you did here suggests to me that it's worthwhile to invest a significant amount of time into delving into CR.

Suppose LW, vaguely defined as it may be, is mistaken on some major points. E.g. Karl Popper refuted induction.

Whether or not individual X did Y is not a major point as far most people on LW are concerned.

Some people I talked with at LW seem to still be developing as intellectuals

Of course, part of the growth mindset is about constantly developing.

No one is responsible for defining an LW school of thought

Creating a School of Thought would violate the idea of keeping identity small. We do sometimes use terms like "aspiring rationalist" or speak of LW but that's not the focus of our intellectual pursuits. We only use labels like that when they are useful.

When there's a disagreement, ask yourself: "Suppose hypothetically that I'm wrong and the other guy is right. In what way would I ever find out and learn better?" If there's no good, realistic answer then you're bad at paths forward.

We have plenty of discussions where people change their minds.

In one of EY recent posts he described how he updated on String theory physicists knowing more than he previously thought because he took a bet.

Betting has the advantage of letting reality decide what's right. That's more important than providing clever arguments in favor of a position and as such it's valued more highly (or at least we try to value it more highly).

Comment author: bogus 09 November 2017 06:31:56PM 0 points [-]

I think I know what you mean - the site has recently become just barely usable on the simplest of its pages. But as soon as you do something that happens to poke the "JavaScript VM" the wrong way (crazy things like, idk, looking at recent postings by date, viewing a user's recent contributions to the site, or even just opening a popular post w/ lots of comments!), it just grinds to a halt. It's maddening.

Comment author: ChristianKl 09 November 2017 07:12:16PM 0 points [-]

The Lean Startup way suggest releasing a project early even when the first release has problems. I don't think there's a problem with LW2.0 being developed according to those principles.

Comment author: Lumifer 08 November 2017 04:04:40PM 0 points [-]

your questions are based on assuming aspects of your philosophy are true

I don't think so. At the moment we are operating in a very simple, almost crude, framework: there's reality, there are models, we can detect some mismatches between the reality and the models. Isn't falsification one of the favourite Popperian ideas?

Are you interested in understanding a different perspective

I am asking you questions, am I not? And offering you -- what do you call them? ah -- critical arguments.

Comment author: ChristianKl 08 November 2017 05:46:11PM 0 points [-]

Isn't falsification one of the favourite Popperian ideas?

I don't think you are supposed to use it for the important models.

Comment author: bogus 07 November 2017 06:20:28AM 0 points [-]

The biggest "issue" with LesserWrong right now is not whatever "features" are missing; it's that performance on that website sucks, to the point of making it quite simply unusable. It feels like LW 0.2, not LW 2.0 - it's even a lot worse than Arbital, which is hardly a high-performing website itself! The way I see it, everything else is secondary - unless this situation is improved well before the vote, I can only assume that lots of people will be voting against the merge, since LW-as-we-know-it would be dead either way, and the "against" option at least keeps archives easily accessible!

For the record, this is not what I, or even most of us (or so I would imagine) actually want! We want a usable LesserWrong, of course. But will we get it?

Comment author: ChristianKl 08 November 2017 03:58:57PM *  0 points [-]

The developers know that performance is the most important thing and are working on it. From my own experience, it's already much better today than it was at the start.

Comment author: Dagon 25 October 2017 10:59:09PM 1 point [-]

Depends on what else is in EvilPharmaCorp's portfolio. Vaccines are generally cheap, but broadly applied so can be profitable. Treatments for disease are often CRAZY expensive, but you sell less of them. There is a network relationship, though - if you can sell much less of the vaccine, you can increase the disease more than linearly.

So truly evil pharma would try to suppress immunization rather than pushing it.

Comment author: ChristianKl 28 October 2017 09:43:20AM 0 points [-]

There are enough different pharma companies that vigorously compete with each other. One company that has a patented treatment for disease X that makes a lot of money might not want to develop a vaccine to cure it but that doesn't mean that developing a vaccine isn't interesting for other companies.

Comment author: ChristianKl 25 October 2017 08:17:39PM 1 point [-]

Is this all really necessary?

Necessary is a bad word. The core question is what happens to be the highest utility.

In the US we also recommend: Hep A, Hep B, Rotavirus, Meningococcus, Varicella, and yearly flu shots (for babies and children).

Meningococcus, Rotavirus and Varicella also seems to be on the schedule in Germany. The first three I Googled.

It would be nice if each country showed their work.

Every country does has a commission that argues their decisions. From your perspective the problem is likely that the German documents are in German, the Danish in Danish and the Swedish in Swedish.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 24 October 2017 09:51:55PM *  2 points [-]

"When it comes to needles to stick my new kiddo with, I'm not really being persuaded to do more than the intersection of vaccinations between similar nations."

You don't know enough to decide this. What is "similar" (climate, culture, disease spectrum?) Do you know the history of their immunization laws?


Seems to me you first decided this is an icky procedure, and it hurts your kid, and you feel protective. Then you went looking for reasons not to do it. Immunization has a free-rider aspect, because of herd immunity. So you may well get away with it, in terms of your kid's health, but "people like you" (defectors in PD) are a problem.


If you are an evil pharma-corp, vaccines are a terrible way to be evil.


C/D calculations in public health are real, but this is one of those things where the only way to be effective is not break the phalanx formation.

Comment author: ChristianKl 25 October 2017 07:01:43PM 0 points [-]

If you are an evil pharma-corp, vaccines are a terrible way to be evil.

Evil pharma-corps don't care about being evil but care about making money. I don't see why vaccine that can be sold Westerns are bad on that front.

View more: Next