= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
But can you think fluidly in a language you can't speak fluidly? It doesn't follow from being able to understand more than you can articulate that you speak only a small fraction of the words you can think, as byrnema implies. It sounds more like the process of articulation and understanding are decoupled.
Note: assumption made that thought is in a particular language.
I can speak English and am learning Esperanto. When I think of the referent known by the English pointer "dog" my mind most strongly associates the pointer "dog" and much less strongly the pointer "hundo".
But as per internal narratives? I'd agree, yes, that articulating words, whether in an internal narrative or externally spoken, is separate from understanding.
I think what byrnema is saying is that they don't articulate their running internal narrative. They are developing an internal narrative along with the worldess-concept kind of thought that is already in place.
In response to
Rationality Market Research
Here's two more samples for you. Both subjects are Indian, male, late twenties, highly educated and fluent in English. These are chat transcripts (used with permission):
Roshni: if someone were to describe themselves as a Rationalist to you, what stereotypes would come to your mind about that person?
X:Logical ?
Roshni: anything else?
X: Analytical ?
Roshni: would that be positive or negative?
X: Grey area... positive in some case - but in extreme cases, it can be negative
Roshni: if some one person identified that way, which part of the spectrum would you place him on?
X: I need more info
Roshni: let's say there's a club
called the Rationality club
and a group of people attend it twice in a month to discuss various things, do various club activities together etc
X:I'll term them crazy
But I consider most of these stuff as crazy
So I can be wrong
Roshni: there's no right or wrong answer, i'm looking for general impressions only
so negative
X:Yes
..................................................
Roshni:if someone were to describe themselves as a Rationalist to you, what stereotypes would come to your mind about that person?
V:ayn rand first
Roshni:what else?
V: that's about it i suppose. all that would be in my mind is "this is one person i can get along with easily"
Roshni: what if they told you they thought Ayn Rand was a nutcase? well, not a nutcase, just wrong mostly
V: sure
don't matter
Roshni :what if they told you they belong to a Rationality Club
first impressions on the club?
V:........i would really wonder if such a place really adds any value to anyone..........i would consider going to a rationality club albeit with a lot of skepticism
<snip>
Roshni: figuring out if 'rationality' has a negative connotation to people who hear it
V:nah, rationality has no negative connotation to me. i love the idea.
the negative connotation for me is with the word "club"
I don't know one way or the other if explicitly mentioning a group of rationalists is a good idea or not, so bear that in mind...
But I'm think of ways to spin it that might sound better than "club", while still being accurate: "Rationalist association" "rationalist society" "rationalist fellowship" "community" "fraternity" "(semi-official) group of rationalist individuals who meet regularly for discussion"
In response to
Rationality Market Research
I think I'll start doing this.
And regarding #4, I think that a phone recording audio in a shirt pocket to aid later transcription wouldn't be amiss. Maybe putting the audio up online would, but in the news/reporting field it's pretty standard practice to have audio going while interviewing.
Also, if you [have/know somone with] a fairly "official-looking" camera with an externally attachable interview-style microphone, then you can go around and do some street spots with less awkwardness. When people see somone talking to a person on the street like that, they get the impression it's one-on-one. And if you approach someone, they'll be more likely to be comfortable with an interview-style conversation.
Agreed that it didn't sound right. I have two children at two different stages of learning to speak (just learning and getting more fluent) and they don't suppress vocalization even though they speak only a small fraction of the words they think.
I can think about how I know this if there's any question. It's related to the fact that speaking is awkward for them at first (for example, beginning with just one word sentences), but they understand what I say to them in much more detail. So I think they have a model for language that is advanced of their ability to speak it.
This is receptive language versus productive language.
It's the same if you have ever tried to learn a new language. Typically you can understand much more people who are fluent speaking than you can actually say, even though when you recieve the words, you're processing them with the same brain that you produce the words with.
Dorikka's comment notwithstanding, there are several Esperanto speakers here on LW, including yours truly.
I largely agree with Vladimir_M on the value of learning languages from a purely instrumental point of view -- except of course it depends on how easily you can do it. For me, it's probably my single greatest ability, so the opportunity cost is low. Also, competence in more than one language has status-signaling value beyond its practical uses. (This is true particularly in the United States, where knowledge of foreign languages is considered an esoteric skill.) And quite frankly, I find it to be an enjoyable hobby.
Any Esperantists who are willing to be a conversational partner to someone just beginning to learn the language (myself)?
In response to
Basics of Animal Reinforcement
Put a pigeon in a box on variable interval schedule, and you'll get constant lever presses and good resistance to extinction.
Put a pigeon in a box with a variable ratio schedule and you get a situation one of my professors unscientifically but accurately described as "pure evil". The pigeon will become obsessed with pecking as much as possible, and really you can stop giving rewards at all after a while and the pigeon will never wise up.
Absolutely fascinating! I have never heard of this before. Thanks.
You've proably been in a skinner box though.
"Instant win" prizes on fast food and soft drinks.
WoW drop tables. Or basically any game where a prize or reward for victory is not guaranteed.
I wouldn't recommend Team Fortress 2 to someone with problems with 3D virtual environments. Nor to someone with discipline problems.
I took the specification of Portal to mean more highly visually disorienting games. It's why I didn't recommend Mirror's Edge. Maybe I parsed it incorrectly? If so, yes. Yes you do have a point there.
And I didn't really find it all that gripping, in the getting-addicted-to-it sense. I am generalizing from my own personal experiences here though, so I may be an outlier, where the majority of players do get sucked in?
My reasoning is more that there's no real plot. You don't need to "finish" the game, you can just play it whenever and it is just as satisfying from an entertainment standpoint.
shrugs I will take your dissent as evidence, however. I am quite new to the game.
In response to
The True Rejection Challenge
I should play games (of the video, card, or board variety.) I get told this a lot, by very intelligent people.
Reasons I don't:
I already have a hard time getting work done while having a side project, a relationship, and imperfect discipline; I dread adding another hobby.
It actually takes a lot of work to get good at a game, and if I'm putting in work, I want to have something to show for it.
Certain kinds of video games (i.e. Portal) are viscerally unpleasant for me; I'm not used to navigating a 3d virtual environment since I never played video games as a kid, and so I spend all my time bumping into walls and wondering why other people pay for the privilege.
I could maybe justify poker to myself as useful practice in strategic thinking, but the only people who'd want to play with me live out of town.
For number 1, single-instance games. An RPG with 30 hours in the MAIN storyline and 100 more in optional sidequests would probably not be your ideal. But drop-in, drop-out type gaming might be better. TF2 is one I've started playing, especially since it's free. And the learning curve is fairly gentle, especially with tutorials. Find a class you like, play it until you're comfortable. Then find another. The only issue is that it would require a sufficient investment in hardware if you don't have it already.
Playing on (and joining, if you're so inclined) Kongregate.com is another option. Some "hardcore" gamers look down on flash gaming as a lesser form, but I've seen some wonderfully crafted games on Kong. They have a rating system and actual submission criteria. They don't accept any crap, so the quality of games are better.
There's also a lot of puzzle games, so the whole learning-something-gathering-skills-while-playing area is covered.
For number 4... it requires a larger number of people, but it's a decent party game: Liar's Dice. Yes, Liar's Dice as seen in Pirates of the Carribean. All you need is at least 5 dice per player (dollar store in bulk, you can probably spend only a dollar per player) and some dice cups (I cut down and taped up some paper cups.) Deception, strategy, all the elements of poker. Just with some added novelty.
I am treating it as if it's a blocker to him acting on a goal.
And I never said "you shouldn't have to worry...", all I said was that letting what other people think get in the way of doing the right thing isn't very smart.
Sometimes the best way to overcome a block is to just accept that things are like that and push on. The opinions of strangers is one thing that you cannot (much) influence. You should consider how you appearance and actions look to them because of things like them calling the police because you're wandering around at 2 in the morning howling along to Norwegian Death Metal, but if you just want to go trail running in a place where other kids like to pour cheap booze down their throats and start on the next generation, then just keep running.
Again, I agree... outside the bounds of this excercise.
I have absolutely no objection to any of your advice, whatsoever. It's all pretty good advice, if presented a little forcefully. But I get that sort of "tough titties, now do the work" methodology. Nor would I be making any noise if this was only an article about aspiring rationalists giving advice to other aspiring rationalists.
But it isn't.
The point is to figure out a strategy to AVOID the obstacles presented, not insist that the obstacles be removed. That way the obstacles can no longer be used as an EXCUSE not to do the thing. The point of the Rejection Challenge is to excise excuses not excise obstacles.
The one: "I can't get from point A to point B because there is a wall in the way." The other (1): "Walk around the wall. Get a ladder and climb over it. Get someone to boost you over. Etc., etc." The other (2): "Break the wall down, and walk straight from A to B."
We want to take path 1, not path 2.
ETA: If you disagree with the core point of the excercise, I don't think anyone would object to you commenting and saying so, while explaining precisely WHY.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Is it just me, or is the word "rationality" highlighted with a yellow background for this post, and only this post? I'm finding it a very distracting effect, and I'm not seeing it anyplace but this one post.
(Firefox 5.0 and Windows XP, in case it's relevant. I'm assuming it's post formatting, but no one else seems to have commented on it, and it seems sufficiently odd to merit mention)
IE8 (work machine) and XP.
And yes, I see it too. Odd.