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

Comment author: PeerGynt 27 November 2016 09:02:00AM -2 points [-]
Comment author: gjm 01 June 2016 04:36:35PM 0 points [-]

I downvoted the post even though some of it made me laugh: I thought it was funny but not the kind of funny I want to see more of on LW.

(There are lots of things I enjoy but would not want to see more of on LW.)

Comment author: PeerGynt 02 June 2016 05:23:19AM 3 points [-]

I don't understand why this comment is downvoted and I want to go on record to say it wasn't me. I appreciate when people tell me why they downvote my posts.

I definitely did expect mixed reactions to the original post. I'll be honest and say that I'm surprised that people keep downvoting it to levels that I associate with malicious trolls, rather than let it stay hidden at -5 which seems appropriate for a failed attempt at humor. But it doesn't really matter, it would take much more than negative reactions to a joke to stop me from making Less Wrong great again :)

Making Less Wrong Great Again

-15 PeerGynt 01 June 2016 04:34AM






Please post other Making Less Wrong Great Again memes in the comments


Comment author: [deleted] 23 December 2015 01:27:59PM *  1 point [-]

We are living in a simulation.

Cryonics grows in popularity but our masters find it boring.

Eventually, it displeases them enough to start a new game file. Our game file is overwritten, our universe dies.

Comment author: PeerGynt 23 December 2015 11:05:43PM 3 points [-]

Hi there, Mac. I'm a Matrix overlord. Can I have my 10 dollars, please?

Comment author: HungryHobo 05 November 2015 05:11:39PM *  2 points [-]

Estimates of nuclear weapons being deployed in a conflict between the 2 states in the next 10 years?

Poll is a probability poll as described here:http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Comment_formatting#Probability_Poll

values from 0 to 1


Comment author: PeerGynt 05 November 2015 06:50:20PM *  3 points [-]

Could you specify whether you want answers as percentage probability, probabilities, odds, or expected number of launches? My answer was intended as a percentage

Comment author: [deleted] 21 August 2015 09:25:23PM 3 points [-]

IHe's explaining the process of compartmentalization. I suspect if he had to bet on it for the background of a scientific fact, he would choose option A, but if he were discussing with a Rabi, he would choose to option B... he's reallly just choosing which compartment of belief to draw from.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Robert Aumann on Judaism
Comment author: PeerGynt 21 August 2015 09:30:47PM 4 points [-]

So there is free money to be had by posing as a rabbi and offering a bet to Robert Aumann?

Comment author: ChristianKl 10 May 2015 12:21:07PM 1 point [-]

Before using Oxycontin in a job interview I would test it in other settings with lower stakes first.

Nasal Spray Oxycontin doesn't cross the blood brain barrier.

What Oxycontin actually does seems to be that it makes fascia contract. It changes fascia tension patterns in your body. Those matter for emotional management and for how you are perceived by other people. Unfortunately that means the effects are complex and there very little published research on how fascia tension patterns interact with emotions as the psychology department likes to ignore the body and treats it as a black box.

Comment author: PeerGynt 10 May 2015 05:31:29PM *  1 point [-]

Using OxyContin(tm) for a job interview seems like a distinctly bad idea. Particularly if the employer asks for drug screening.. If you absolutely have to, I suggest sticking with Oxytocin.

Comment author: Unknowns 04 May 2015 10:12:44AM 3 points [-]

If you "use the word that the person in question prefers," then the word acquires a new meaning. From that moment on, the word "male" means "a human being who prefers to be called 'male'" and the word "female" means "a human being who prefers to be called 'female'". These are surely not the original meaning of the words.

Comment author: PeerGynt 04 May 2015 02:52:11PM *  0 points [-]

Why do you care about the 'original' meaning of the word?

Let's imagine we are arguing about trees falling in the forest. You are a lumberjack who relies on a piece of fancy expensive equipment that unfortunately tends to break if subjected to accoustic vibrations. You therefore create a map where the word "sound" means accoustic vibrations. This map works well for you and helps you resolve most disguised queries you could be interested in

Then you meet me. i make a living producing cochlear implants. My livelihood depends on making implants that reliably generate the qualia of sound. I therefore have a different map from you, where the word 'sound' means the subjective experience in a person's brain. This works well for the disguised queries that I care about.

If we meet at a cocktail party and you try to convince me that the 'original' meaning of sound is accoustic vibrations, this is not a dispute about the territory. What is happening is that you are arguing the primacy of your map over mine, which is a pure status challenge.

The purpose of categories in this context is to facilitate communication, ie transfer of information about the territory from one mind to another. Agreeing on a definition is sometimes important to avoid confusion over what is being said. However, if there is no such confusion, insisting on one definition over another is a pure monkey status game

Comment author: James_Miller 03 May 2015 03:44:41AM 2 points [-]

What is the LessWrong-like answer to whether someone born a male but who identifies as female is indeed female? Relevant to my life because of this. I'm likely to be asked about this if for no other reason than students seeing how I handle such a question.

Comment author: PeerGynt 03 May 2015 04:12:24AM *  29 points [-]

What is the LessWrong-like answer to whether someone born a male but who identifies as female is indeed female?

The Lesswrong-like answer to whether a blue egg containing Palladium is indeed a blegg is "It depends on what your disguised query is".

If the disguised query is which pronoun you should use, I don't see any compelling reason not use the word that the person in question prefers. If you insist on using the pronoun associated with whatever disguised query you associate with sex/gender, this is at best an example of "defecting by accident".

Request for Steelman: Non-correspondence concepts of truth

13 PeerGynt 24 March 2015 03:11AM

A couple of days ago, Buybuydandavis wrote the following on Less Wrong:

I'm increasingly of the opinion that truth as correspondence to reality is a minority orientation.

I've spent a lot of energy over the last couple of days trying to come to terms with the implications of this sentence.  While it certainly corresponds with my own observations about many people, the thought that most humans simply reject correspondence to reality as the criterion for truth seems almost too outrageous to take seriously.  If upon further reflection I end up truly believing this, it seems  that it would be impossible for me to have a discussion about the nature of reality with the great majority of the human race.  In other words, if I truly believed this, I would label most people as being too stupid to have a real discussion with. 

However, this reaction seems like an instance of a failure mode described by Megan McArdle:

I’m always fascinated by the number of people who proudly build columns, tweets, blog posts or Facebook posts around the same core statement: “I don’t understand how anyone could (oppose legal abortion/support a carbon tax/sympathize with the Palestinians over the Israelis/want to privatize Social Security/insert your pet issue here)." It’s such an interesting statement, because it has three layers of meaning.

The first layer is the literal meaning of the words: I lack the knowledge and understanding to figure this out. But the second, intended meaning is the opposite: I am such a superior moral being that I cannot even imagine the cognitive errors or moral turpitude that could lead someone to such obviously wrong conclusions. And yet, the third, true meaning is actually more like the first: I lack the empathy, moral imagination or analytical skills to attempt even a basic understanding of the people who disagree with me

 In short, “I’m stupid.” Something that few people would ever post so starkly on their Facebook feeds.

With this background, it seems important to improve my model of people who reject correspondence as the criterion for truth.  The obvious first place to look is in academic philosophy.  The primary challenger to correspondence theory is called “coherence theory”. If I understand correctly, coherence theory says that a statement is true iff it is logically consistent with “some specified set of sentences”

Coherence is obviously an important concept, which has valuable uses for example in formal systems. It does not capture my idea of what the word “truth” means, but that is purely a semantics issue. I would be willing to cede the word “truth” to the coherence camp if we agreed on a separate word we could use to mean “correspondence to reality”.   However, my intuition is that they wouldn't let us to get away with this. I sense that there are people out there who genuinely object to the very idea of discussing whether a sentences correspond to reality. 


So it seems I have a couple of options:

1. I can look for empirical evidence that buybuydandavis is wrong, ie that most people accept correspondence to reality as the criterion for truth

2. I can try to convince people to use some other word for correspondence to reality, so they have the necessary semantic machinery to have a real discussion about what reality is like

3. I can accept that most people are unable to have a discussion about the nature of reality

4. I can attempt to steelman the position that truth is something other than correspondence


Option 1 appears unlikely to be true. Option 2 seems unlikely to work.  Option 3 seems very unattractive, because it would be very uncomfortable to have discussions that on the surface appear to be about the nature of reality, but which really are about something else, where the precise value of "something else" is unknown to me. 

I would therefore be very interested in a steelman of non-correspondence concepts of truth. I think it would be important not only for me, but also for the rationalist community as a group, to get a more accurate model of how non-rationalists think about "truth"



View more: Next