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

Comment author: [deleted] 25 March 2009 12:28:53AM *  4 points [-]

Fight Club demonstrates this perfectly (even more perfectly in the book, when it's made clear that the main characters entire goal is to get a woman). Men who feel pointless, empty, marginalized by the system they live in are willing to do anything to achieve high-status and a sense of purpose. This so closely resembles terrorism that I would be more interested in terrorist groups and acts that can't be traced to some sort of status or purpose-seeking, as I imagine they are few and far between.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Terrorism is not about Terror
Comment author: InsertUsernameHere 06 October 2015 05:01:48AM 1 point [-]

Fight club doesn't demonstrate anything, because it didn't happen (on account of being a story).

Comment author: Luke_G. 16 October 2007 12:52:15PM 7 points [-]

"Characters can be ignorant, but the author can't say the three magic words 'I don't know.'"

One funny exception to this is Mark Twain's "A Medieval Romance," which you can read here:


Just scroll down and read the last three paragraphs.

Comment author: InsertUsernameHere 19 December 2013 03:27:43PM 1 point [-]

Why would anyone think that the only way to show you're not the father is to declare you're a woman?

Comment author: [deleted] 15 October 2010 08:12:11AM 17 points [-]

Sounds like someone's beliefs aren't paying rent.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Belief as Attire
Comment author: InsertUsernameHere 12 December 2013 03:24:02PM *  3 points [-]

Or maybe it's a matter of existential risk? If there's a 1/10 chance of him being horribly wrong, then I don't particularly blame him for not testing it. I might believe <insert explosive tidbit here> quite thoroughly, but not want to test it when the explosive is directly in front of me.

I'd happily test it from behind a blast wall, though.

Comment author: pedanterrific 26 October 2011 02:52:20AM 3 points [-]

I can see if the topic is controversial among those whose standards of evidence I respect, and if it is, I can refrain from judgment on the grounds that if there were strong evidence either way, there would be no controversy.

Now with regards to "we still don't even know what kind of food is best to eat!" That is a question that we do know! ... You will find the answer from a professional dietician/nutritionist (whatever your country calls them) that's spent about 3 years studying to find out the answer in all its complexity.

Are you asserting that there is no controversy among credentialed nutritionists about what kind of food is best to eat?

Comment author: InsertUsernameHere 22 July 2013 08:57:20AM 7 points [-]

Are you asserting that there is no controversy among credentialed nutritionists about what kind of food is best to eat?

Nutritionist here. The protected word is "dietician", literally anyone can legitimately call themselves "nutritionists", whereas you actually have to have some relevant credentials before you're a credited dietician.

As a nutritionist, my professional opinion is that bricks are quite healthy, due to their high iron content.

Comment author: iii 02 June 2012 10:52:57PM 5 points [-]

Only make up hasty generalizations when it's entertaining to do so.

Also: if it gets you internet points.

Comment author: InsertUsernameHere 06 July 2013 03:11:54PM 0 points [-]

Internet points are constantly ruining my subreddits.

Comment author: thomblake 03 December 2010 12:38:31AM 1 point [-]

Or explaining to someone how clothing is a tool that changes people's perceptions of you, and by studying the basics of fashion and aesthetics, you can achieve more of your aims in life. Yes, it shouldn't be like that in an ideal world. But we're not in that ideal world - fashion and aesthetics matter and people react to it.

For the record, I don't think a world in which people were not influenced by aesthetic concerns would be an ideal one (or even fairly good).

Comment author: InsertUsernameHere 17 June 2013 03:51:33PM 0 points [-]

I think that perhaps it would be interesting if you assumed the above was referring to being unconsciously influenced by aesthetic concerns. If it doesn't go through your mind that you're subconsciously passing judgement on someone, how are you supposed to evaluate its validity, and mitigate it (if necessary)?

I think that I'm quite possibly taking a hypothetical way too far, but in an ideal world, everyone would only be able to be consciously influenced by aesthetic concerns, and not subconsciously. Hypothetically.

Which is entirely perpendicular to your point, but see the first line in the above paragraph, so whatever.