Comment author: calcsam 16 August 2011 12:59:12AM *  9 points [-]

Not feasible. Let's aim for a more modest goal, say, better PR and functional communities.

Moreover, not this community's comparative advantage. Why do we think we'd be any better than anyone else at running the world? And why wouldn't we be subject to free-riders, power-seekers, and rationalists-of-fortune if we started winning?

Comment author: PlacidPlatypus 16 August 2011 02:45:07AM 2 points [-]

We think we'd be better at running the world because we think rationalists should be better at pretty much everything that benefits from knowing the truth. If we didn't believe that we wouldn't be (aspiring) rationalists. And just because we couldn't do it perfectly doesn't mean we're not better than the alternatives.

Comment author: wedrifid 07 August 2011 03:52:02AM 16 points [-]

because while individual differences clearly exist, group differences probably don't

Just not true. And obviously not true at that. Was this presented as "one of the crazy beliefs that some insane people have" or as your own position? Hard to keep track in there.

Group differences not existing would be such an overwhelmingly improbable occurrence that it would prompt me to second guess my atheism. The universe isn't fair. Things just don't go around being equal to each other without good reason.

Comment author: PlacidPlatypus 09 August 2011 12:41:07AM 4 points [-]

Sorry for the confusion.

It was meant as a joint position of the insane people and myself, but on further consideration I'm abandoning it.

However, I don't think it's that unlikely that e.g. racial differences are fairly minimal if they exist at all, at least in terms of genetic rather than cultural/environmental/whatever differences. To the best of my knowledge, races aren't all that distinct on a genetic level, so I wouldn't call it "overwhelmingly improbably" that they would turn out to be close to indistinguishable in terms of intelligence.

That might be wishful thinking at play, but it seems sound to me. Not to say that it's not worth doing a serious investigation of the possibility that there really are such differences.

Comment author: lessdazed 07 August 2011 04:43:07AM *  2 points [-]

"believing this is true would cause people to act horribly, so let's not believe it."

That's not just delusional, it's deluded.

"believing this is true would cause people to act horribly, so let's not believe that we believe it," would be merely delusional, and hence less objectionable.

Comment author: PlacidPlatypus 09 August 2011 12:29:36AM 3 points [-]

I mostly agree with you; I was just stating my impression of the attitudes of those raising the objections in the first place (note the quotation marks). And to be fair to them, it's really more, "believing this would cause other people to act horribly, so let's keep them from believing it."

Comment author: August 29 October 2007 07:48:27PM 2 points [-]

Why isn't the concept of fairness a bias? It seems to meet the criteria.

Comment author: PlacidPlatypus 08 August 2011 11:59:04PM 2 points [-]

It could also be a moral value in your utility function, in which case what looks like bias mostly falls under wishful thinking.

Comment author: PlacidPlatypus 07 August 2011 03:36:14AM 2 points [-]

I think Eliezer is missing the main cause of the uproar in cases like this. The stance of the uproarers is not that "If this was true, it would be horrible, so let's not believe it." It's more like, "believing this is true would cause people to act horribly, so let's not believe it."

Claims of innate racial and sexual differences in intelligence have historically been baseless rationalizations that attempt to justify oppressing the group in question. So now when anyone raises the question, they are shouted down because they are tarred with the same brush. The objectors are not saying that if true group intelligence differences would be worse than individual intelligence differences. but that saying there are group differences is worse than saying that there are individual differences, because while individual differences clearly exist, group differences probably don't and are usually postulated by people who are motivated to invent them. This may be irrational, but not in the way this post focuses on.

In response to Is Santa Real?
Comment author: PlacidPlatypus 06 August 2011 08:52:25PM 1 point [-]

My parents taught me about God the same way that they did about Santa and the Tooth Fairy, and I don't think it did me any harm. I decided for myself that God didn't exist before I figured out that my parents were atheists too, but I don't have any especially strong memories of figuring out any of the three.

In response to Rationality Quotes 4
Comment author: anonymous_coward3 21 January 2008 03:42:40AM 2 points [-]

These quotes seem to have little to do with rationality. What's the connection?

Comment author: PlacidPlatypus 06 August 2011 05:17:53AM 8 points [-]

The last, long one is basically saying shut up and multiply. Going with your gut intuitions might make you feel better about your decisions, but it won't really get you a better outcome. In your own life, if you want to pay a premium for that feeling of (unjustified) confidence that's one thing, but when other people's lives are at stake you have to be cold about it if you want to do what's really right.

The second and third are about how rationality for its own sake is futile. Rationality is good because it makes you better at what really matters. Your goal is to win; being rational is just the best way to do that.

The first one I believe relates back to the last. The point of altruism is not to make yourself feel warm and fuzzy, it's to help others. So don't go saving the cute puppies that you can see when you can get utils much cheaper somewhere else.

This is all my own opinion, I apologize if I misinterpreted any of it.

View more: Prev

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit