= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Probably the best examples involve instances of judging the wisdom of a decision made under extreme uncertainty based on how it came out. So the decision to try to steal a base was praiseworthy if the runner was safe but foolish if the runner got thrown out, and things like that. More broadly, the phenomenon is very strong opinions based on limited or misinterpreted evidence. For example, there are a couple of pitchers on the Yankees right now where there is a big debate about whether they are better suited to be starting pitchers or to be relievers. People have incredibly strong opinions about this on the basis of next to no information, and they regard those opinions as being altogether vindicated in each individual instance where the pitcher does well in their preferred role.
This is common not just in sports, but in other fields as well. If the Allies had been thrown back into the sea on D-Day, it would have gone down as a historic blunder; many, perhaps even most, judge decisions not by their expected chance of succeeding but by their results.
generalizations about individuals based on their ethnicity is clearly dumb. inquiring into broad trends that correlate well with ethnic divisions is interesting and demands further research.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/116483.html
we're at the dawn of understanding genetics. to preemptively decide that a branch of inquiry will not be allowed simply because our ancestors were ignorant douche bags is silly. as rationalists I'd say it's our job more than most to take a mature, level headed look at the data that emerges. things are really going to heat up once we get cheap complete genome sequencing. we'll be able to look at actual allele distributions in ethnic sub-groups on a large scale for the first time in history (!)
I understand this research, view it as important, and know several people who are working in this field at the present time. That said, the work of geneticists is quite different from casual social observations and generalizations. When I speak out against sweeping generalizations based on gender or ethnicity, I do not speak out against the geneticists.
you're attaching a bunch of words with negative connotation without actually telling what's wrong. we all make generalizations all the time. we can't interface with reality without making generalizations. if it is clearly wrong then you have the entire apparatus of social statistics to debunk.
I'm quite surprised that this requires explanation, since this seems like basic-level rationality to me, but here we go:
Generalizations about people of a particular ethnicity, based solely on their ethnicity, are racist. Overt racism is not acceptable in modern civilized society. In the past, overt racism was acceptable, but we have moved beyond that. It is extremely unwise both from a personal belief perspective and from a general signalling perspective to hold or argue for such views.
Upvoted for not being about gender.
If you ask me, the term "instrumental rationality" has been subject to inflation. It's not supposed to mean better achieving your goals, it's supposed to mean better achieving your goals by improving your decision algorithm itself, as opposed to by improving the knowledge, intelligence, skills, possessions, and other inputs that your decision algorithm works from. Where to draw the line is a matter of judgment but not therefore meaningless.
I strongly agree, and I'd like to add that I definitely see a place for this sort of instrumental rationality here.
I fear I play a poor inquisitor, and you a poor Galileo. The thought that it's all right to make broad generalizations about large groups of people isn't some great new theory that society is trying to suppress-- it's just wrong. Indeed, such an idea is regressive, not revolutionary.
partially because if I was a female rationalist it would be offensive to me that Eliezer assumes I would respond differently to the same comment simply because of the gender of the commenter. Just like it would be offensive to me as a black person if the LW community thought that I would only respond positively to comments made by another black person.
there's absolutely nothing wrong with men making generalizations about women, nothing wrong with whites making generalizations about blacks or vice versa. allowing overly sensitive members of minority groups to dictate behavior is a waste of time.
"there's absolutely nothing wrong with men making generalizations about women, nothing wrong with whites making generalizations about blacks or vice versa. allowing overly sensitive members of minority groups to dictate behavior is a waste of time."
Are you serious? Assuming that you are, you are treading on ground that is far from stable, especially in a place such as this...
This may be somewhat tangential, but a bit of graph theory would do wonders, especially theory related to recognizing deceptive or misleading graphs.
Robert Greene? How extensively have you read him? He readily advocates manipulation and refers to the other party as the "victim." I find this off-putting: he is describing things that are (mostly) fair play in a way that makes them sound like foul play, which is exactly how many PUAs sound, leading readers to get the wrong idea.
I find his stance in this regard to be absolutely correct; if you're going to write a book on methods of manipulating people, you may as well call a spade a spade.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Brilliant, Eliezer. I love the concept of the Order of Silent Confessors. It makes the distinction between terminal values and the conduct that one should adopt to uphold those values crystal clear. That said, the thought of an organization of people who are willing to, um, purge themselves of all their terminal values except one (to help humans fulfill their fundamental desires, whatever they may be) is a bit hard to believe.
""Out of curiosity," said the Lord Pilot, "have they ever tried to produce even more babies - say, thousands instead of hundreds - so they could speed up their evolution even more?"
"It ought to be easily within their current capabilities of bioengineering," said the Xenopsychologist, "and yet they haven't done it.""
Isn't this evidence that baby eating is not, in fact, one of the Babyeaters' terminal values? If it really was they would do everything to increase the amount of babies they eat. It looks like their terminal value, instead of being "eating babies", is a actually something like, "eating babies in the way that our ancestors have always eaten babies". In other words, they put more value on upholding the _tradition_ of baby eating than on baby eating as such.
This is extremely belated, but I know several people who would be willing to eliminate the vast majority of their values in this fashion, at least if they believed that they were truly helping humanity.