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

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 10 April 2017 03:45:35AM 0 points [-]

...deontological responses (DRs) seem to be equivalent to responses that demonstrate cognitive biases in non-moral situations. For example, the omission bias favors harms of omission over less harmful harms caused by acts, in both moral and non-moral situations (Ritov & Baron, 1990). This similarity suggests that the DRs arise from some sort of error, or poor thinking. Much evidence indicates that the cognitive processes supporting moral and non-moral judgments are largely the same (e.g., Greene, 2007). If this is true, the question arises of what sort of thinking is involved, and when it occurs.

[Link] Explanations of deontological responses to moral dilemmas

1 Jayson_Virissimo 10 April 2017 03:43AM
In response to comment by gwillen on LessWrong Discord
Comment author: gwern 14 March 2017 03:22:11AM 0 points [-]

No IRC :(

In response to comment by gwern on LessWrong Discord
Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 14 March 2017 04:17:42AM 0 points [-]

IRC is near the center.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 21 November 2016 02:07:03AM *  6 points [-]

This could be a great technique for adding structure to internet discussions, but this algorithm says more about which debate team has more time on their hands, than which arguments have been refuted or not.

Comment author: Val 06 November 2016 10:57:52AM 3 points [-]

For many people, religion helps a lot in replenishing willpower. Although, what I observed, it's less about stopping procrastination, and more about not despairing in a difficult or depressing situation. I might even safely guess that for a lot of believers this is among the primary causes of their beliefs.

I know that religious beliefs on this site are significantly below the offline average, I didn't want to convince anyone of anything, I just pointed out that for many people it helps. Maybe by acknowledging this fact we might understand why.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 07 November 2016 03:06:23AM 3 points [-]

I've noticed something even more general: people that have a well-defined philosophy of life seems more motivated and resilient to setbacks or tragedy than those who lack such a self-narrative. But this appears to be the case even for philosophies of life which have tenets that contradict (or at least stand is strong tension with) each other in important ways, such as Christianity, Objectivism, Buddhism, Stoicism, etc...

This is pure anecdote, and obviously the people I come in contact with are not even close to a random sample of humanity, so I'd very much like to be pointed towards a more systematic study of the phenomena (or lack thereof).

Comment author: MrMind 03 November 2016 03:08:00PM 0 points [-]

Isn't this a ripoff of Slate Star Codex take on voting?

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 04 November 2016 12:56:30AM *  0 points [-]

Trying to calculate the expected value of voting goes back at least to public choice economists in the 1960s.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 16 August 2016 03:30:56AM 0 points [-]

I like your failed arguments section. IMO, frequent reminders about the phenomenon of using "arguments as soldiers" is one of the most straightforward and effective ways to encourage a higher levels of rationality in ourselves and others.

Comment author: James_Miller 07 August 2016 08:26:05PM 3 points [-]

I think eradication would appeal more to Trump than Clinton so there is a higher marginal value in attempting to persuade him. Trump supporting eradication would at least put the issue in serious political play. Finally, I'm a Republican and if somehow I managed to contact someone on team Hillary she would likely Google me and quickly determine I was a political enemy and so would at best ignore my proposal.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 13 August 2016 07:56:32PM *  1 point [-]

Have you already tried getting the idea through to Trump via a backchannel like Scott Adams (some of Trump's staffers pay attention to him), who takes cost-benefit style arguments seriously?

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 07 August 2016 07:28:47PM 1 point [-]

Most prediction markets give Hillary Clinton an advantage over Donald Trump. In general, if one candidate comes out in favor of something, the supporters of the other candidate will be more likely to oppose that thing (all else equal). Doesn't this suggest attempting to get Clinton to come out in favor of eradicating mosquitos is the better strategy?

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 01 August 2016 04:13:38PM 3 points [-]

Beginning to reason is like stepping onto an escalator that leads upward and out of sight. Once we take the first step, the distance to be traveled is independent of our will and we cannot know in advance where we shall end.

-- Peter Singer, The Expanding Circle: Ethics, Evolution, and Moral Progress

View more: Next