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

Comment author: drethelin 21 March 2017 04:34:00PM 0 points [-]

Consider that if you focus on a single throwaway generalization from a longer essay that you're the one outgrouping yourself.

Comment author: Dustin 24 March 2017 06:54:37PM *  0 points [-]

1) It's not readily apparent to me that it is readily apparent to all potential readers that it is a throwaway generalization.

2) I'm not sure what you mean by "focus on". Are you claiming that someone who notices that some might feel outgrouped or that someone who does feel outgrouped are going to be unable to read, comprehend, and/or appreciate the rest of the post? Are you claiming that the rest of the essay makes it readily apparent that the phrase under discussion is just a throwaway generalization? Are you claiming that everyone should always recognize throwaway generalizations and not react to them? Are you claiming that throwaway generalizations do not ever say anything about the mindset of those who are using them?

Comment author: Alicorn 19 March 2017 07:55:52PM 1 point [-]

I considered adding [citation needed] after that sentence but thought it was probably pretty obvious. I guess not everybody goes to rationalist group house parties all the time.

Comment author: Dustin 20 March 2017 01:51:49PM *  1 point [-]

Consider that the phrase seems like a pretty effective way to out-group other people.

Comment author: jkaufman 18 March 2017 03:29:14PM 6 points [-]

Rationalists don't all like group houses, but compared to the rest of the population they disproportionately like them. There have been several in person meetup groups that have started houses, and these have generally gone pretty well. (Ex: Citadel in Boston)

Comment author: Dustin 19 March 2017 05:52:10PM 0 points [-]

I'm skeptical that meetups are representative of rationalists in general.

Comment author: Dustin 19 March 2017 05:44:31PM 1 point [-]

Rationalists like to live in group houses.

Do they? This seems like a pretty strong claim to make.

Comment author: Dustin 05 February 2017 02:58:32AM 0 points [-]

I read almost every post and not very many comments...because i subscribe to the RSS feeds.

Comment author: Dustin 02 February 2017 01:54:32PM *  5 points [-]

My first thought after skimming your post and thinking about it for 30 seconds is that reality does not have to care about about what you think is presumptuous. (I post because many times I reason myself out of my initial reaction and then later regret having done so. Maybe by putting it down in writing it will help me only do this if necessary.)

If the problem with EDT is that is spanws or destroys multiverses with a single thought, and you want to use this fact as an argument against EDT, than you'll have to make the argument that multiverse spawning/destroying is not logically or physically possible.

Presumptuousness is a state of your mind, not something upon which the workings of reality hinges...or at least it doesn't seem that way.

Comment author: Dustin 16 August 2016 03:03:28PM *  2 points [-]

I don't really follow the discussion about willpower depletion but seeing this post reminded me that I saw that earlier this year there was a registered replication effort that seems to indicate that ego depletion doesn't exist or is a very small effect.

The paper and some commentary:

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/rrr-the-ego-depletion-paradigm

And the pop-science article where I first saw mention of it:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story/2016/03/ego_depletion_an_influential_theory_in_psychology_may_have_just_been_debunked.html

Comment author: Dustin 24 April 2016 03:12:50PM *  1 point [-]

the elite are against it while everyone else is for it

You're living in a filter bubble if you think this.

Comment author: Dustin 04 May 2016 10:06:13PM 1 point [-]

I'm not sure why I got downvoted for this. Unless you define "elite" as those against it, this statement is clearly untrue.

Comment author: flame 24 April 2016 05:35:17AM 3 points [-]

Also, the problem with all the pieces that focus on Trump's style is that they completely ignore his substance. Trump's position on immigration is only "controversial" in the sense that the elite are against it while everyone else is for it. Thus it's not surprising that Trump is doing well. In fact looking at other western countries we see parties with similar positions doing well despite having styles that are all over the place.

Comment author: Dustin 24 April 2016 03:12:50PM *  1 point [-]

the elite are against it while everyone else is for it

You're living in a filter bubble if you think this.

In response to Roughly you
Comment author: Dustin 21 April 2016 05:31:32PM 0 points [-]

I expect most people have some older relative or friend who they feel has added some wisdom to their life

Interesting, I expect this to not be the case...but my confidence in my expectation is weak.

If I offered you partial immortality - immortality for just part of you - how rough an approximation of "you" would you be willing to accept?

I think this question hides a pretty fundamental assumption. That assumption being whether or not we can talk coherently about "a rough approximation of 'you'".

If I'm missing 90% of my memories but with no hit on my IQ, I'd definitely accept that. But I'm not even sure the distinction between memories and IQ makes any sense. Would I accept coming back with 60IQ? Well, I don't think most people with 60 IQ want to die, so yes.

I think the only thing I can say with certainty is that if the state I come back in feels like it has some continuity with the current me and this future state does not want to exist, then I do not want to come back in that state.

I'm not even sure how coherent it is to say that last bit. For example, if you are to ask me what my wishes are if I was to develop Alzheimer's...I'm not positive that I have any claim over the disposition of this future being who shares some sort of continuity of physical existence with the me of now. To make claims about what should or should not be done to me at that point feels a little wrong. On the other hand, I am forced to make guesses at what future states of me would prefer the me of now to do so that I can make decisions about what to do now.

Is it possible to exist in a state where it's impossible to make decisions about whether or not I want to exist in that state while at the same time it making any difference whether or not I exist in that state? A rock, as far as I know, cannot make such decisions, but then I don't think it makes any difference if the rock exists or not. A worm doesn't seem to be able to make any decisions in a manner that has any important weight to me, and I don't think it makes any difference if it does or doesn't exist. A me with an IQ of 60 seems like it can make decisions about whether or not it exists. When it comes to a state of me with no ability to decide whether or not I want to exist...I have no idea whether that me should or should not exist. I also have no idea if that state of me is coherent to call a state of me.

Anyway, I'm just typing out a stream of thoughts without any coherent philosophy backing them. Which isn't to say that I haven't attempted to tackle the question, I'm just not smart enough to come to a satisfying answer.

View more: Next