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

Comment author: Duncan_Sabien 31 May 2017 06:17:37PM *  1 point [-]

I think you're confusing "refusal to address basic safety concerns to handoflixue directly" with "refusal to address basic safety concerns at all." I deny your right to judge and interrogate me, because of your failure to exhibit clear thinking and good discourse. I've engaged with those very same points in many other comment threads, though—there are literally only three people in this entire thread for whom I've determined that the EV of digging into their perspective is not worth it.

I note that there's a bet waiting in the wings to lend your harsh words credibility. You could charitably offer to donate your winnings to salving the pain of the people you claim to care about.

Comment author: Mycroft65536 01 June 2017 04:02:56AM 5 points [-]


I think you're dramatically underestimating how your responses are being read by third parties. Your style of response to handoflixue specifically has made at least one person I've spoken to decide to avoid giving you well thought out criticism out of fear of you yelling at them and being very confrontational.

Comment author: Alicorn 17 March 2017 01:46:56AM 21 points [-]

If you like this idea but have nothing much to say please comment under this comment so there can be a record of interested parties.

Comment author: Mycroft65536 17 March 2017 04:30:41AM 1 point [-]


In response to Something to Protect
Comment author: Nominull3 31 January 2008 03:30:55AM 4 points [-]

I don't have anything desperately important to me, and you say I'm not allowed to just pick something. Given this, what am I supposed to do, to become more rational? Am I just doomed? I really desperately want to believe true things and not false things, but you say that's not good enough.

Comment author: Mycroft65536 16 August 2013 06:02:58AM 0 points [-]

Explore the world. Meet people, read books, find blogs like this one. Hopefully something will inspire you.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 06 March 2013 05:30:40AM 2 points [-]

This is a new service and it has to interact with the existing medical system, so they are currently expensive, starting at $5,000 for a research report. (Keeping in mind that a basic report involves a lot of work by people who must be good at math.) If you have a sick friend who can afford it - especially if the regular system is failing them, and they want (or you want) their next step to be more science instead of "alternative medicine" or whatever - please do refer them to MetaMed immediately.

What might it be worth to people to find out that some or all of the usual procedures are so dangerous and/or ineffective as to be not worth doing?

Comment author: Mycroft65536 06 March 2013 05:57:21AM 3 points [-]

Likely more than the list price of those procedures. People who have expensive potentially harmful procedures being done on them would get great benefits having MetaMed review those procedures.

Comment author: ema 05 March 2013 06:08:05PM *  5 points [-]

According to their site Jaan Tallinn is not the CEO but chairman of the board. Zvi Mowshowitz is the CEO.

Comment author: Mycroft65536 05 March 2013 10:52:08PM 1 point [-]

Jaan is also the CTO, I'm not sure if that's on the website.

Comment author: Mycroft65536 05 March 2013 02:29:55AM 1 point [-]

If you're commited to rationality, then you're putting your belief system at risk every day. Any day you might acquire more information and be forced to change you belief system, and it could be very unpleasant and be very disturbing.

--Michael Huemer

Comment author: wedrifid 21 March 2012 11:44:04AM 19 points [-]

I have to concur and further emphasize that the most impressive people aren't those that rigidly lock themselves into the high status mode in every transaction. Sure, being limited to only high status moves is better (for most people in circumstances we are familiar with) than being limited to only low status moves but being able to use either as the situation arises is far more useful. And I don't just mean being able to submit to the more powerful, for all that is useful.

Comment author: Mycroft65536 23 March 2012 03:09:14AM 2 points [-]

Are you of the opinion that people on this site, in their daily lives, are erring on the side of implementing too many high status moves? Or that the people you met in SF while at the mega-camp were doing this stuff too much (Michael Vassar and Eliezer aside)? I agree that the optimum isn't either extreme, I think the nudging should be towards high status behavior.

And does anything in the original post endorse the high status behaviors over the low status ones?

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 10 October 2011 10:35:53PM 2 points [-]

Then you will be told about the task (i.e that you have hidden a coin), and asked to try to find the coin. If you find it you'll lose, but you will be convinced that if you find it you win.

How does this work? If I know that there's evidence that will convince my future self that finding the coin will make me win, then I update on this, and don't believe you when you say that I'll lose if I find the coin. Vice-versa after the memory wipe.

Comment author: Mycroft65536 10 October 2011 10:59:12PM 4 points [-]

Tell the person in both states that if he finds the coin an arbitrary dog is going to die and the subject will receive $100. Then just before the subject starts to hide the coin, show the a cute puppy to them. The subject will try to hide the coin very well, and then later, without the memory of the cute puppy, will try to find the coin. Incentives should work out, adjust the animal(child?) and dollar amount to suit the subject.

Comment author: wedrifid 10 October 2011 08:43:36PM 3 points [-]

I can't really think of any activity that meets all criteria, +wanting/+liking/+approving.

Really? That seems... odd. Are there no healthy enjoyable activities that you want to do? Not even sex?

Comment author: Mycroft65536 10 October 2011 09:10:20PM 0 points [-]

When I would explain wanting vs liking vs approving Sex was my go to example for an activity that fits all three.

In response to comment by [deleted] on An Outside View on Less Wrong's Advice
Comment author: Vladimir_M 07 July 2011 09:46:25PM *  9 points [-]

Honestly, I think the cluster of tech-savvy, young, smart-but-nonconformist types is really winning at the goal of being productive while happy.

As a general rule, nonconformists aren't happy: they must choose between hiding their nonconformity and living a double life, which is never a happy situation, or being open nonconformists and suffering severe penalties for it. What you have in mind would probably be better described as people who know how to send off fashionable signals of officially approved pseudo-nonconformity, and to recognize and disregard rules that are only paid lip-service (and irrelevant except as a stumbling block for those not smart enough to realize it), but are perfect and enthusiastic conformists when it comes to things that really matter.

Comment author: Mycroft65536 07 July 2011 11:50:11PM 5 points [-]

I'm not sure about that. The world is big enough that you can live most of your life mostly in contact with other non-conformists in your particular cluster. I'm doing that right now.

View more: Next