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

Comment author: JGWeissman 14 April 2010 09:21:47PM 1 point [-]

My use of "venusian arts" was adopting PJEby's vocabulary first? used here.

Yeah, I think it is good to stay away from the connotations of "venereal".

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 24 September 2017 12:37:40PM 0 points [-]

OTOH "venusian" sounds like it's about the planet.

Comment author: wedrifid 14 April 2010 04:21:38PM *  0 points [-]

Those were just listed off the top of my head and biased towards groups and situations in which the advice is most relevant.

I suppose you may be right about he radical feminists with respect to paternalism, although I don't naturally distinguish between common behaviour patterns based on the genitalia of the actor. I'm going with Morendil's word here but to the extent that 'paternalism' implies 'when done by males' I would perhaps want to use a different word.

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 24 September 2017 12:28:53PM *  0 points [-]

to the extent that 'paternalism' implies 'when done by males' I would perhaps want to use a different word

"Parentalism"?

(And "maternalism" when done by females? ;-))

Comment author: SilasBarta 13 April 2010 08:55:10PM *  2 points [-]

Your comparison isn't fair -- compare mental manipulations vs. physical ones, and notice that "The Rules" were almost as controversial as "The Game".

All manipulations under discussion pass through the mind, so I don't understand the distinction mental vs physical. And, "The Rules" certainly hasn't gotten near the attention as "The Game", nor does it commit the sin of breaking from advice women already get. ("Hold off on having sex with a man" -- gee, I'm sure women aren't taught that, right?) So there parallel isn't nearly as strong as you claim.

Conversely, you're not going to be declared evil if you tell men they should work out to get a certain chest-waist or shoulder-waist ratio that women find attractive.

But that's not advice of remotely similar effectiveness: a) women rank looks as relatively unimportant beyond a certain point, and b) for a man, simply looking good is not attractive in that it does not, er, attract. You won't get approached by women just for looking good; women, OTOH, will be approached by men mainly on their looks.

Nobody cares that much about what men and women do to emphasize their physical attractiveness, or change in superficial behaviors to be more attractive. It's things that involve direct effect on the attractee's mind, or direct alteration to the attractor's body (e.g. implants, lifts, hair plugs) that produce the most impression of deception and manipulation, and thus the most excoriation.

(ETA:) I'm not alleging deception or hypocrisy in those standards and judgments. What I criticize is the attempt to suppress and disparage truthful information about what criteria women are actually using. What goes on now would be like if men adamantly denied that breast implants have any effect whatsoever on female attractiveness, and that they're immoral, and pursued women with implants almost exclusively. (I know you disagree that this accurately characterizes what goes on, and my responses to that are elsewhere in this post. I just want to clarify what specific behavior I'm criticizing.)

Also, phrasing is very important. I could rephrase your controversial advice in a much-less offensive way thus:

[...] I just gave essentially the exact same advice, but in a harder-to-object to form.

Not for "ordering them around", you didn't; there was no parallel in the advice you gave for that. More importantly, the good advice you claim women agree with is given side by side with the stuff that's completely ineffective and countereffective (gifts, admiration, letting her make choices -- which by the way does not contradict "knowing what you want"). How are men supposed to know which advice is deception and which isn't (or perhaps more politely, which advice reveals a lack of self-understanding / luminosity / going along with what one's expected to say)?

Most women I know would not only agree with the correctness of this advice, but would express their wish that more guys understood these things, and advocate educating men in this fashion -- since it emphasizes the benefits of these behaviors for women. (i.e., confidence, relatability, and independence)

Sure, but like above, they say the same thing about men doing the counterproductive stuff. A clock is broken even when it's right twice a day.

The problem is that men and women do not always use the same (connotational) language for behaviors. ... the terms women would use to describe the behavior they find attractive ("a man who knows what he wants, and isn't afraid to say it").

It sounds like you're saying women are truthful as long as you stick to euphemisms and politician-speak("a man saying what he wants") and stay away from practical implications ("a man ordering a woman to use a different fashion" [1]). Am I supposed to be thankful for this?

[1] Which counts as sexual harassment, btw (unless you're really hot).

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 24 September 2017 11:14:23AM 0 points [-]

You won't get approached by women just for looking good

Speak for yourself! :-)

Comment author: ChristianKl 08 August 2017 04:40:27PM 6 points [-]

Meta Contrarian Typography by Tom Bartleby - The author is a self-described meta-contrarian. Supporting two spaces after a period. The three reasons for single spaces and why they don't hold up. Double spaces makes writing easier to skim, periods are over-worked in English.

Did someone try to run an A/B test to see whether one version makes reading easier? It seems to me like a question that should be able to be answered with data.

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 09 August 2017 03:44:54PM 3 points [-]
Comment author: cousin_it 06 July 2017 10:44:21AM *  4 points [-]

Since other people are biologically similar to me, they probably say "I'm conscious" for the same reason as me, so it makes sense to believe them. The problem in Chinese Room is that the system is quite different from a human and might be lying about some things, so there's less reason to trust it when it claims to have human-like qualia.

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 27 July 2017 01:24:00PM 1 point [-]

Since other people are biologically similar to me, they probably say "I'm conscious" for the same reason as me, so it makes sense to believe them.

Be careful (2, 3).

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 27 July 2017 01:02:58PM *  0 points [-]

Meh. You can have two systems of coordinates related to each other by r_1 = R_Earth^2/r_2, theta_1 = theta_2, phi_1 = phi_2, t_1 = t_2 and as per general relativity both will give you the same answers if you use them right. (But one of the two will be much much easier to use right than the other.)

Comment author: ZankerH 13 July 2017 09:48:00AM *  1 point [-]

Sounds like you need to work on that time preference. Have you considered setting up an accountability system or self-blackmailing to make sure you're not having too much fun?

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 16 July 2017 06:59:03AM 0 points [-]

Why?

Comment author: philh 10 July 2017 01:22:09PM 0 points [-]

I'm unlikely to try to solve it, but are you looking for an answer like "if the king starts here, you can do it with N queens placed at...", or "no matter where the pieces start, you can do it with N queens"? Are you limiting positions to those which could theoretically be achieved in a legal game of 4D chess?

(By that last one, I mean that on a 2D board, you could have a king in the corner and a queen directly adjacent above and beside it, and that would be mate. But you can't ever have that position in a legal chess game. If something like that turns out to be the optimal, would you accept it?)

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 11 July 2017 07:22:57AM 0 points [-]

I mean that on a 2D board, you could have a king in the corner and a queen directly adjacent above and beside it, and that would be mate.

No, unless the queen is defended by some other piece, otherwise the king could just capture it. Or am I missing something?

Comment author: Viliam 06 July 2017 12:32:49PM *  0 points [-]

Some Fermi estimates; feel free to disagree with specific numbers and provide your own.

Let's take an average human life as a unit of value; i.e. the value of human's life is 1.

How large part of "a value of human's life" is "having lunch, in general, as opposed to only having a breakfast and a dinner every day of your life"? Let's say it's somewhere between 1/10 and 1/100, because there are many other things humans value, such as not being in pain, or having sex, or having status, or whatever.

If we estimate an average human life to be about 10 000 or 20 000 days, then "having this specific lunch" is between 1/10 000 and 1/20 000 of "having lunch, in general".

But the choice is actually not between having a lunch and not having a lunch, but between having a chicken lunch or having a vegan lunch. Let's say the taste of chicken provides between 1/4 and 1/10 of the value of a lunch.

Putting these numbers together, a value of "having a chicken for a specific lunch" is about 1 / 1 000 000 of a value of a human life.

As a quick check, imagine that you are both in a vegan country, where chickens are simply not available for lunch. Would you sell 1% of your remaining lifespan (less than 1 year) to the Devil in return for having a chicken for lunch each day of your life? I guess many people would, probably even more than 1%; and the revealed preferences (e.g. people dying as a result of salmonella) seem to match this.

So, it seems like ethically it is right to eat chicken if and only if a value of a human life is greater than value of 1 000 000 chicken's lives. Which, according to many people, it is.

Possible methodological problems:

1) Scope insensitivity: maybe people say that 1 000 000 chickens are less worth than humans simply because they cannot imagine what "1 000 000" actually means; they only imagine about dozen chickens when making the emotional judgement. On the other hand, there are people who as a part of their profession kill large numbers of chicken, so they would have a near-mode idea of what it means. How many people would be willing to do such profession, though?

2) How much is the desire to eat chicken a result of cultural brainwashing? Do people in countries where vegetarianism is normal agree that having a chicken instead would increase the value of their lunch by 10%? That is, how much is "wanting to eat a chicken" actually wanting to eat "a chicken", as opposed to simply wanting to eat "the same thing as yesterday".

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 07 July 2017 09:15:50AM 0 points [-]

Putting these numbers together, a value of "having a chicken for a specific lunch" is about 1 / 1 000 000 of a value of a human life.

I'd estimate that as ((amount you're willing to pay for a chicken lunch) - (amount you're willing to pay for a vegan lunch))/(statistical value of life). But that's in the same ballpark.

Comment author: Viliam 06 July 2017 12:32:49PM *  0 points [-]

Some Fermi estimates; feel free to disagree with specific numbers and provide your own.

Let's take an average human life as a unit of value; i.e. the value of human's life is 1.

How large part of "a value of human's life" is "having lunch, in general, as opposed to only having a breakfast and a dinner every day of your life"? Let's say it's somewhere between 1/10 and 1/100, because there are many other things humans value, such as not being in pain, or having sex, or having status, or whatever.

If we estimate an average human life to be about 10 000 or 20 000 days, then "having this specific lunch" is between 1/10 000 and 1/20 000 of "having lunch, in general".

But the choice is actually not between having a lunch and not having a lunch, but between having a chicken lunch or having a vegan lunch. Let's say the taste of chicken provides between 1/4 and 1/10 of the value of a lunch.

Putting these numbers together, a value of "having a chicken for a specific lunch" is about 1 / 1 000 000 of a value of a human life.

As a quick check, imagine that you are both in a vegan country, where chickens are simply not available for lunch. Would you sell 1% of your remaining lifespan (less than 1 year) to the Devil in return for having a chicken for lunch each day of your life? I guess many people would, probably even more than 1%; and the revealed preferences (e.g. people dying as a result of salmonella) seem to match this.

So, it seems like ethically it is right to eat chicken if and only if a value of a human life is greater than value of 1 000 000 chicken's lives. Which, according to many people, it is.

Possible methodological problems:

1) Scope insensitivity: maybe people say that 1 000 000 chickens are less worth than humans simply because they cannot imagine what "1 000 000" actually means; they only imagine about dozen chickens when making the emotional judgement. On the other hand, there are people who as a part of their profession kill large numbers of chicken, so they would have a near-mode idea of what it means. How many people would be willing to do such profession, though?

2) How much is the desire to eat chicken a result of cultural brainwashing? Do people in countries where vegetarianism is normal agree that having a chicken instead would increase the value of their lunch by 10%? That is, how much is "wanting to eat a chicken" actually wanting to eat "a chicken", as opposed to simply wanting to eat "the same thing as yesterday".

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 07 July 2017 09:07:35AM *  1 point [-]

How large part of "a value of human's life" is "having lunch, in general, as opposed to only having a breakfast and a dinner every day of your life"? Let's say it's somewhere between 1/10 and 1/100,

I.e. you'd take a 1% chance of being killed straight away over a 100% chance of never being allowed to have lunch again, but you'd take the latter over a 10% chance of being killed straight away?

...Huh. Actually, rephrasing it this way made the numbers sound less implausible to me.

View more: Next