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

Comment author: SquirrelInHell 23 June 2016 01:55:43AM *  1 point [-]

Here are some relevant references from the book:

When investigators actually go and look, rather than just declare that we are products of childhood, the lack of strong continuity from childhood to adulthood is what hits you between the eyes. This is a major discovery of life-span developmental psychology. “Change” is at least as good a description as “continuity” for what happens to us as we mature. For good reviews of this very large literature, see M. Rutter, “Continuities and Discontinuities from Infancy,” in J. Osofsky, ed., Handbook of Infant Development, 2d ed. (New York: Wiley, 1987), 1256–98; H. Moss and E. Sussman, “Longitudinal Study of Personality Development,” in O. Brim and J. Kagan, eds., Constancy and Change in Human Development (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980), 530–95; G. Parker, E. Barrett, and I. Hickie, “From Nurture to Network: Examining Links Between Perceptions of Parenting Received in Childhood and Social Bonds in Adulthood,” American Journal of Psychiatry 149 (1992): 877–85; and R. Plomin, H. Chipuer, and J. Loehlin, “Behavior Genetics and Personality,” in L. Pervin, ed., Handbook of Personality Theory and Research (New York: Guilford, 1990), 225–43.


Especially instructive is the finding that divorce itself is heritable. If you have an identical twin who divorces, your chances of divorce increase sixfold, whereas a divorced fraternal twin only increases your chances of divorce twofold. See M. McGue and D. Lykken, “Genetic Influence on the Risk of Divorce,” Psychological Science 3 (1992): 368–73.


See D. Finkelhor, “Early and Long-term Effects of Child Sexual Abuse,” for a recent review. Three longitudinal studies are R. Gomes-Schwartz, J. Horowitz, and A. Cardarelli, Child Sexual Abuse: The Initial Effects (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1990); A. Bentovim, P. Boston, and A. Van Elburg, “Child Sexual Abuse—Children and Families Referred to a Treatment Project and the Effects of Intervention,”. British Medical Journal 295 (1987): 1453–57; J. Conte, “The Effects of Sexual Abuse on Children: Results of a Research Project,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 528 (1988): 310–26. For the better prognosis in children than in adults, see R. Hanson, “The Psychological Impact of Sexual Assault on Women and Children: A Review,” Annals of Sex Research 3 (1990): 187–232. For ripping off the scars and even manufacturing them out of whole cloth, see D. Kent, “Remembering ‘Repressed’ Abuse,” APS Observer 5 (1992): 6–7. For the effect of lengthy litigation, see D. Runyan, M. Everson, D. Edelsohn, et al., “Impact of Legal Intervention on Sexually Abused Children,” Journal of Pediatrics 113 (1988): 647–53.

Comment author: Diadem 23 June 2016 08:40:43AM 0 points [-]

Your claim was that child abuse and trauma have barely any influence on adult life. This is clearly an extraordinary claim, that requires evidence to be taken seriously.

Your evidence are three quotations, two of which only contain more links, and the third is about the heritability of divorce, which has nothing to do with your claim.

So in other words you have given zero evidence for your claim. Maybe there is some evidence to be found in one of the many citations you gave, but without knowing which one or what to look for it would take many hours to investigate this. That is not a reasonable burden to place on your readers, given the prior unlikeliness of your initial claim. I'm not saying you should make an airtight case for your claim in a single post, but at the very least you should give us some reason to put in further effort.

Comment author: Liron 17 June 2016 02:29:42AM 1 point [-]

I guess I'll be the first one to offer a steel man interpretation of pwno's post:

Assuming you're anti-Trump... If voting for Trump could be done with no logistical inconveniences, and somehow legally pay you a reward of say 10 cents, and you didn't believe this offer was being made to anyone else, then a good rationality test is whether you would take that offer.

Comment author: Diadem 17 June 2016 08:26:54AM *  -1 points [-]

The US federal budget is 3.7 trillion. The president probably can't meaningfully affect the spending of most of that, but his impact is still significant. If I had to ballpark it I'd say a trillion over 4 years seems likely. Plus his long term effect on the nation through laws and regulations.

How many Americans vote? About a hundred million? So the average value of a vote is in the area of $10,000. That is a lot of money. Sure it is much less if you live outside a swingstate, but not by a factor 100k.

Even if your non-swingstate vote was meaningless there is still a tragedy of the commons. If every California Democrat stayed home because the Democrats will win California anyway... they won't. The rational solution to a tragedy of the commons is not to defect.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 05 May 2016 11:40:13AM 1 point [-]

Yet given that we are not always fully rational and strategic in our social engagements, it is easy to slip up within debate mode and orient toward winning instead of uncovering the truth.

To be fully rational is to orient toward winning.

Me, I'm not fully rational. I'm a moron. I typically do what you suggest instead - orienting toward truth (epistemic truth). It's taken me decades to realize the foolishness of that, but it is still my natural inclination.

-- Recovering Truthaholic

Comment author: Diadem 05 May 2016 04:00:34PM 1 point [-]

Very droll.

But define winning. In many situations, finding the truth is winning.

For example take global warming. Maybe I'm lobbyist for big oil and for me winning means making sure no one takes global warming seriously. But even then knowing the facts is still in my interest. So if I'm amongst fellow lobbyists who I trust it is in my interest to take an open, truth seeking approach. This will help me identify the strong and weak points in my opponents' arguments. It will help in formulating distractionary strategies. Etc. I will just have to make sure no one records the meeting and then leaks it.

Comment author: RomeoStevens 26 April 2016 03:14:28AM 4 points [-]

reflexively inverting any advice you are given to see if it still sounds wise as a test for falsifiability is something I think Charlie Munger mentions doing.

Comment author: Diadem 26 April 2016 09:46:40AM 8 points [-]

I think that's somewhat missing the point of a lot of advice like that though. Often advice in the form of proverbs or popular quotes is not meant to be taken literally. It's meant to offer you a new angle from which to look at the problem.

Just because two quotes contradict each other, doesn't mean they can't both be good advice. If you think someone is being too rash, quoting a proverb like "discretion is the better part of valour" can be good advice. But if you think they are being too cautious, the opposite ("nothing ventured, nothing gained") can also be good advice.

Most advice is context dependent.

Comment author: turchin 28 January 2016 10:11:06PM *  0 points [-]

In its natural form QI is bad, but if we add cryonics, they will help each other.

If you go under the bus you now have three outcomes: you die, you are cryopreserved and lately resurrected and you are badly injured for eternity. QI prevent first one.

So you will be or cryopreserved or badly injured and survive for eternity. While both things have very small probability, cryopreservation may overweight longterm injury. And it certainly overweight a chance that you will live until 120 years old.

So if you do not want to suffer for eternity , you need to sign up for cryonics ))))

If we go deeper, we maybe surprised to find our selves in the world that prevent us from very improbable life of no dying old man, because we live in a very short time of human history where cryonics is known.

It may be explained (speculatively) that if you are randomly chosen from all possible immortals, you will find yourself in the class with highest measure.

It means that that you should expect no degradation, but ascending, may be by merging with Strong AI. It may sound wild, but I was surprised that I was not only one who came to the same conclusion, as when I was in MIRI last fall one guy had the same ideas (I forget his name).

In short it may be explained in following way: from all humans who will be immortal the biggest part will be the ones who merge with AI and the smallest one will be those who survive as very old man thanks to random fluctuation.

Comment author: Diadem 29 January 2016 11:07:15AM 0 points [-]

Sure, cryonics would help. But it wouldn't be more than a drop in the ocean. If QI is true, and cryonics is theoretically possible, then 500 years from now there'll be 3 kinds of universes: 1) Universes where I'm dead, either because cryonics didn't pan out (perhaps society collapsed), or because for some reason I wasn't revived. 2) Universes where I'm alive thanks to cryonics and 3) Universes where I'm alive due to quantum fluctuations 'miraculously' keeping me alive.

Clearly the measure of the 3rd kind of universe will be very very small compared to the other two. And since I don't experience the first, that means that subjectively I'm overwhelmingly likely to experience being alive thanks to cryonics. And in most of those universes I'm probably healthy and happy. So that sounds good.

But quantum immortality implies forced immortality forever. No way to escape, no way to permanently shut yourself down once you get bored with life. No way to die even after the heath death of the universe.

No matter how good the few trillion years before that will be, the end result will be floating around as an isolated mind in an empty universe, kept alive by random quantum fluctuations in an increasingly small measure of all universes that will nevertheless always have subjective measure of 1, for literally ever.

Now personally I don't think QI is very likely. In fact I consider it extremely unlikely. All I'm saying is that if it were true, that'd be a nightmare.

Comment author: Diadem 28 January 2016 03:44:47PM 3 points [-]

The problem with Quantum Immortality is that it is a pretty horrible scenario. That's not an argument against it being true of course, but it's an argument for hoping it's not true.

Let's assume QI is true. If I walk under a bus tomorrow, I won't experience universes where I die, so I'll only experience miraculously surviving the accident. That sounds good.

But here's where the nightmare starts. Dying is not a binary process. There'll be many more universes where I survive with serious injuries then universes where I survive without injury. Eventually I'll grow old. There'll be some universes where by random quantum fluctuations that miraculously never happens, but in the overwhelming majority of them I'll grow old and weak. And then I won't die. In fact I wouldn't even be able to die if I wanted to. I could decide to commit suicide, but I'll only ever experience those universes where for some reason I chose not to go through with it (or something prevented me from going through with it).

It's the ultimate horror scenario. Forced immortality, but without youth or health.

If QI is true having kids would be the ultimate crime. If QI is true the only ethical course of action would be to pour all humanity's resources into developing an ASI and program it to sterilize the universe. That won't end the nightmare, there'll always be universes where we fail to build such an ASI, but at least it will reduce the measure of suffering.

Comment author: Lumifer 26 January 2016 03:27:55PM 4 points [-]

All of the above. Really, think about the issue for 30 seconds.

Comment author: Diadem 28 January 2016 03:21:35PM 1 point [-]

Downvoted. I personally agree that username2's idea is naive, but it seems sincerely held, and making fun of it instead of explaining its problems is dickish.

In response to Voiceofra is banned
Comment author: LessWrong 24 December 2015 06:55:20AM -2 points [-]

I've gotten sufficient evidence from support that voiceofra has been doing retributive downvoting.

Requesting a transparency report.

Regarding (if $time-$postdate then karmadisabled), I can't see a reason as to why something like that shouldn't be implemented in less than a week. Any reason why it shouldn't? I never quite got the krama drama.

Comment author: Diadem 24 December 2015 12:14:46PM 13 points [-]

Wait? is 'LessWrong' not an admin account? I always assumed it was, but this thread implies otherwise.

I think it's an extremely bad idea to allow an ordinary user to name themselves after the site. You're basically inpersonating an admin!

Comment author: [deleted] 09 November 2015 08:10:15AM *  -2 points [-]

I heard strawberry jam can be made with just strawberries, water and sugar on a frying pan on the radio. Sounds simple. Sounds simple to exclude the sugar, too. I don't see any minimalist jam like that on the supermarket shelves though. Does it taste poor or have I found nice little market (albeit, with incredibly low barriers to entry)? And, how could I format my last sentence so I get out of this terrible habit of ending sentences with brackets!

In response to comment by [deleted] on Open thread, Nov. 09 - Nov. 15, 2015
Comment author: Diadem 09 November 2015 11:49:14AM 5 points [-]

When I was a little kid we used to make blackberry jam. You can just pick wild blackberries in some places, which is quite a lot of work, but hey, you're out in nature, it's fun, and it's free. Looking back I think it was mostly my parents picking berries while my sisters and I were running around and playing in the forest and eating half the berries our parents picked.

The recipe for making jam is indeed just berries, water and sugar. We used a large pot though, not a frying pan. Just cook and steer until it's done. Pour the jam into a jar while it's still hot, and screw the lit on. As the jam cools it'll create a slight underpressure in the jar, helping preserve the jam and tightening the lit even further.

Sealed properly it can stay good for a long time. One year we kind of overdid things (my sisters and I were a bit older, and actually starting helping instead of 'helping') and ended up with over 300 jars of blackberry jam. They were still good 10 years later.

Self-made jam tastes much better than store-bought jam. Whether that is because it actually tastes better, or because your brain just thinks it tastes better because you made it yourself, I don't know. But it doesn't matter, the end result is the same.

Comment author: HungryHobo 05 November 2015 05:11:39PM *  2 points [-]

Estimates of nuclear weapons being deployed in a conflict between the 2 states in the next 10 years?

Poll is a probability poll as described here:http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Comment_formatting#Probability_Poll

values from 0 to 1


Comment author: Diadem 07 November 2015 01:57:25AM 0 points [-]

Would't it be more accurate to use a geometric mean here, instead of an arithmic one?

An arithmic mean really obscures low predictions.

View more: Next