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

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 17 August 2017 05:59:11PM 0 points [-]

You should do good things and not do bad things

You know that is not universally followed?

Comment author: Lumifer 17 August 2017 08:36:24PM 2 points [-]

I could never imagine such a thing! Next thing you'll be telling me that people do stupid things on a regular basis :-P

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 17 August 2017 04:14:50PM 0 points [-]

Not saying your epsitemology can do things it can;'t do.

Motte: We can prove things about reality.

Bailey: We can predict obervations.

Comment author: Lumifer 17 August 2017 04:21:05PM 2 points [-]

Not saying your epsitemology can do things it can;'t do.

That doesn't seem to be meaningful advice given how "X should not claim it can do things it can't do" is right there near "You should do good things and not do bad things".

And aren't your motte & bailey switched around?

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 16 August 2017 06:46:40PM 0 points [-]

It's worse than that , and they're not widely enough know

Comment author: Lumifer 16 August 2017 08:22:16PM 2 points [-]

Eh. "All models are wrong but some are useful".

Do you happen to have alternatives?

Comment author: Viliam 16 August 2017 07:16:52PM 1 point [-]

Or maybe some kind of recommendation system: "Users who dated this person also dated these: ..."

Comment author: Lumifer 16 August 2017 08:21:07PM *  1 point [-]

Yeah... that might be interesting for Tinder. "Users who fucked this one also fucked this, this, and that one" X-D

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 16 August 2017 04:15:30PM *  0 points [-]

Usually, predictive accuracy is used as a proxy for correspondence to reality, because one cannot check map-territory correspondence by standing outside the map-territory relationship and observing (in)congreuence directly.

Comment author: Lumifer 16 August 2017 04:56:06PM 2 points [-]

Right.

There are caveats because e.g. you can never prove that a map is (entirely) correct, you can only prove that one is wrong -- but these are not new and well-known.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 16 August 2017 03:08:05PM 0 points [-]

That's just another word for the same thing? What does one do operationally?

Comment author: Lumifer 16 August 2017 04:13:26PM 2 points [-]

One tests. Operationally.

Think science/engineering/Popper/the usual stuff.

Comment author: entirelyuseless 16 August 2017 03:02:54PM 0 points [-]

Don't be silly.

It's not silly, but an important fact about reality. The mood you are in influences your behavior and therefore the consequences of your behavior, and thus the future state of the world and all the facts about it. This is directly related to the other point I made about ignoring moods.

I hear what you are saying, but that's more prevalent among normies, if anything.

It might be equally prevalent.

I suspect the nerds are more likely to fight the influence of mood on facts (and usually lose)

Yes, but quite often with a good deal of ignorance about the mood, and this contributes to the losing.

But "facts" and "beliefs" are very different things.

Sure.

Comment author: Lumifer 16 August 2017 04:10:10PM 1 point [-]

an important fact about reality

The observation that you yourself are part of reality is trivial. Of course anything trivial can be spun as important.

It might be equally prevalent.

Evidence?

Comment author: Bound_up 16 August 2017 11:52:26AM 0 points [-]

That's my greatest fear about this.

We're all in our social bubbles, such that some of us don't know a single Young Earth Creationist or Trump fan (or hardly do), so we reject out of turn the idea that so many humans might work this way simply because the ones we hang out with don't.

I could find a better social circle; it sounds like you have, and I don't doubt it's more enjoyable for you. But, either way, let's not forget that the people we don't hang out with still exist, and there's a reason we don't enjoy hanging out with them as much as we do people like us. There's a reason they enjoy politics and partisanship and don't want to hear about your market functions unless what you really mean is how cool some group is.

And there's a reason they're the cool ones that wield all the power.

Humanity's current expenditure of resources is pathetically misaligned with its goals, and fixing that means power.

Comment author: Lumifer 16 August 2017 03:18:52PM *  2 points [-]

some of us don't know a single Young Earth Creationist or Trump fan (or hardly do)

We might not know any personally, but the elven magic of the intertubes makes it easy to read what they say, both as thoughtful essays and as casual chat.

let's not forget that the people we don't hang out with still exist

Sure, but so what?

they're the cool ones that wield all the power

No, I don't think so.

An old EY post was recently mentioned here and there is a relevant quote in it:

One of the major surprises I received when I moved out of childhood into the real world, was the degree to which the world is stratified by genuine competence.

People who wield all the power can usually speak the social language, but those who merely speak that language do not wield the power. It's those who both can speak the language AND deal with reality that do.

Humanity's current expenditure of resources is pathetically misaligned with its goals, and fixing that means power.

I am not quite sure I will trust the rationalists to define the goals of the humanity. I am quite sure I will not trust them with enough power to upend the society to end this "pathetic misalignment".

Comment author: bogus 16 August 2017 07:02:50AM *  0 points [-]

I suspect that the real skill is knowing when the mating^H^H^H^H^H^H signaling dance is worth the effort. Among your fellow geniuses at the IAS? That's a clear 'yes' even if emulating monkey-level neural circuitry does require some effort. In politically-relevant settings as mentioned in the OP? That's another 'yes'. However there are many, many environments where being the top monkey gives you nothing except more mediocrity!

Comment author: Lumifer 16 August 2017 03:00:21PM 1 point [-]

many environments where being the top monkey gives you nothing except more mediocrity

First, what's the alternative? Getting more mediocrity compared to getting nothing doesn't sound too horrible.

Second, your biological hardwiring will automatically provide some hedons just for being the top monkey, even if your minions aren't all that impressive.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 16 August 2017 07:01:12AM 0 points [-]

Everyone builds their own maps and yes, they can be usefully ranked by how well do they match the territory.

How do you detect that?

Comment author: Lumifer 16 August 2017 02:56:48PM 2 points [-]

In the usual way: by testing the congruence with reality.

View more: Next