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

In response to comment by LeBleu on Ugh fields
Comment author: pjeby 15 April 2010 06:53:16PM 6 points [-]

I don't understand what you mean by removing the negative, and how this is supposed to be a simple act. ... If you mean removing the negative reaction, I don't understand how you can claim that is a simple action.

Memory reconsolidation and reinterpretation is a simple act - we do it all the time. Suppose that there's an attractive person of the appropriate sex who looks away and avoids you every time you come in the room. You feel hurt and rejected - a negative reaction. Then, you find out that it's really because he/she is attracted to you and too shy to say anything. Your feelings about the matter change immediately.

Doing this for an arbitrary negative reaction is equally simple, at least in principle.

In response to comment by pjeby on Ugh fields
Comment author: Mets 15 July 2017 01:48:34PM 0 points [-]

Hah, the looking away part has happened too many times for it to hurt me anymore.

Comment author: Ferro 23 May 2012 09:10:09AM 5 points [-]

If we are in a situation which necessitates hypocrisy with regard to our current ideals in order to maintain 'social graces', we have to ask ourselves whether the integrity of our ideals is more important than preserving said social graces. Hypocrisy is more often a way for us to evade the more onerous parts of our ideals than it is a way to preserve 'social graces'; in these cases we have no excuse for our hypocrisy, and must see it as negative. If 'preservation of social graces' is the purpose of the said hypocrisy, then 'preservation of social graces' has become an ideal for us, and we must decide whether our former ideological system will throw out this new ideal, or whether we pin our life on our social interactions. If we include the concept of 'ideals', we must see new ideals as ideals and measure them against each other. Of course, this can be a circular process and often relies on a gut feeling, but if something is an 'ideal', we cannot allow hypocrisy, because if we think that the hypocrisy in a situation is a good thing, our ideals have changed without us knowing it and we should revise, and make a conscious decision regarding this.

Comment author: Mets 25 May 2014 10:54:27AM 0 points [-]

tl;dr: Hypocrisy is compartmentalization of ideals for preserving 'social graces'.

In response to Semantic Stopsigns
Comment author: Owain_Evans 25 August 2007 10:40:45AM 2 points [-]

Even so, you'd hope people would notice that on the particular puzzle of the First Cause, saying "God!" doesn't help. It doesn't make the paradox seem any less paradoxical even if true. How could anyone not notice this?

Thinking well is difficult, even for great philosophers. Hindsight bias might skew our judgment here.

"About two years later, I became convinced that there is no life after death, but I still believed in God, because the "First Cause" argument appeared to be irrefutable. At the age of eighteen, however, shortly before I went to Cambridge, I read Mill's Autobiography, where I found a sentence to the effect that his father taught him the question "Who made me?" cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question "Who made God?" This led me to abandon the "First Cause" argument, and to become an atheist."

– Bertrand Russell, Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, Vol. 1, 1967.

Comment author: Mets 24 May 2014 07:57:55PM *  0 points [-]

If I remember correctly, Russell thought that if anything could exist timelessly, without a cause, it might as well be the universe and not God. But the problem is, we now know (with some reasonable certainty) that the universe began with the Big Bang. The universe could have been timeless, but it isn't. Postulating that there is a timeless First Cause outside the universe solves this problem, since there is no similar theory that shows God has a cause, though it's not a falsifiable or very satisfying solution.

Comment author: fburnaby 22 June 2011 07:10:54PM 6 points [-]

I hate to make this recommendation (especially 2 years late), but figuring out how much alcohol you need to turn from an underconfident introvert to a comfortable socialite (without tipping too far in that direction) has helped me.

Comment author: Mets 10 November 2013 07:59:18AM 5 points [-]

Introversion and confidence are completely unrelated. You probably weren't implying that, but for anyone who comes across this in the future: introversion is not about confidence, shyness, self-esteem, anxiety or anything of that sort. The sheer amount of people who fail to make this distinction is one of the most irritating things I have come across.

Comment author: Ender 29 October 2011 09:34:19PM 3 points [-]

I think I wrote an essay for a middle-school english teacher to the effect that any belief that I had in [the belief in] Santa Claus dragged my belief in [my belief in] God along as it went away (Which would have been around... when I was three or five; my parents didn't really try very hard to convince my siblings or me that Santa actually existed).

I don't remember a time when I believed in more than a belief in Santa, or, though my parents tried a little harder on this front, in God. My mother read to me from a kid's bible (with stories like Noah's Ark (the one with all the incest in it, for anyone who doesn't know) set as poems), but I could tell she didn't believe the stories (she probably figured she ought to make an effort, just 'cause).

Nonetheless, my father only recently began to imply outright that Santa Claus wasn't real.

Comment author: Mets 01 November 2013 02:44:26AM 2 points [-]

Why is it that people use "belief in god" as "belief in Christianity" and "no belief in Christianity" as "atheism"? Even disregarding other religions, there's a whole range of positions between them.