Comment author: [deleted] 18 November 2014 11:34:53AM *  2 points [-]

I think a call for patriarchal racially-stratified monarchy is catnip around here. Independently of its native virtues, I mean. It's a debate that couldn't even happen in most communities, so it's reinforcing our sense of LW's peculiar set of community mores.

Personal opinion follows. Contest it if you like, but your chance of swaying me by arguments without giving very hard evidence is low.

The fact that this is "catnip" for LW-ers is a bad thing. We ought to be giving neoreaction about as much credence as we give Creationism: it's founded on bad ethics, false facts, and bad reasoning, and should be dismissed, not discussed to death.

Comment author: Prismattic 18 November 2014 02:46:10PM 15 points [-]

Creationism was discussed to death long before Lesswrong existed, which is why people downvote attempts to rehash it as a waste of everyone's time. To the extent that Neoreaction is something different than plain old Reaction, a) it's a relatively new memeplex, so if it's bad, someone has to do the work of swatting it down, and b) when the Neoreactionaries aren't busy reviving obscure archaic words for their own jargon, they're using Lesswrong-style jargon. You run the risk of outsiders pattern-matching LW and Neoreaction together either way. I'd prefer the association be "Lesswrong is a place where neoreactionary ideas are discussed and sometimes criticized" than "Lesswrong is that place that sounds very similar to Neoreaction minus the explicit politics".

That being said, there's ample discussion already on Slate Star Codex, and I wouldn't want to see it crowding out other topics here.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 27 October 2014 09:54:31PM *  1 point [-]

Yes, reactions to fanfiction and reactions to PUA are of a different kind. Fanfiction can be considered boring or irrelevant, but not unethical. So for example, an advice "if you don't like it, just ignore it" makes more sense for fanfiction than for PUA.

Speaking as a former fan of PUA, I think it would be good to distinguish between two things: "Which beliefs are correct?" and "Which techniques are ethical?" Not to treat them as the same question. People may behave unethically while having a correct model of the world, or behave ethically while having an incorrect model. Also, the "PUA techniques" is a large set; it may contain both ethical and unethical methods. To pick trivial examples, "negging" would be unethical, while "spend some time in the gym" is ethically neutral, and I would consider it instrumentally rational.

Sorry for getting to the object level, but I believe the rational response to PUA is to look at specific details and say: "this is correct", "this is incorrect", "this is ethical", "this is unethical". Not to accept everything, nor to reject everything. -- This can be further generalized: just because a bunch of ideas comes under the same label, it does not mean that their truth value is the same.

In response to comment by Viliam_Bur on Weird Alliances
Comment author: Prismattic 28 October 2014 01:36:34AM 0 points [-]

To pick trivial examples, "negging" would be unethical, while "spend some time in the gym" is ethically neutral, and I would consider it instrumentally rational.

I think this is the "motte and bailey" applied to PUA. Normally when people say "PUA techniques," they mean something narrower than "anything you might do to increase your attractiveness."

Comment author: Coscott 25 October 2014 03:43:10PM 3 points [-]

I do not understand your argument. If people know that taxes/basic income are coming in the future, that is an incentive for them to become poor relative to if taxes/basic income was not coming. They may not say "Oh, that is a good deal, I want to be poor," but they may work less or take bigger financial risks because of it, because being poor is relatively less bad than it would be otherwise.

Comment author: Prismattic 25 October 2014 06:36:36PM 1 point [-]

The ability to declare bankruptcy has a similar relationship to the riskiness of entrepreneurial activity, but we do not generally describe bankruptcy law as "encouraging people to fail at business" or "paying people to fail at business."

Comment author: Prismattic 25 October 2014 05:21:55AM 12 points [-]

Not being a programmer, I don't know if this is relevant to silicon valley in particular, but people in general overestimate how many hours per week they work, and the greatest exaggeration is found among the people reporting the longest hours.

Full BLS report

Shorter NYT version

Comment author: Coscott 25 October 2014 03:37:38AM 4 points [-]

I also support basic income, but I think you are wrong when you say it is not "paying people to be poor." If you give everyone the same amount, but then just take it right back from the rich in taxes, this is basically the same a just paying the poor for being poor.

Comment author: Prismattic 25 October 2014 05:06:09AM 3 points [-]

"Paying people to be poor" carries an additional connotation of "encouraging them to remain poor"; it's distinct from "paying people because they are currently poor".

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 01 October 2014 05:27:39PM 1 point [-]

Other Media Thread

Comment author: Prismattic 24 October 2014 03:21:01AM *  0 points [-]

Just an FYI for the interested: Homestuck has returned after a yearlong hiatus.

Comment author: hegemonicon 23 October 2014 01:50:50PM *  47 points [-]

Took the survey. Skipped the digit ratio - I could have done it but didn't feel like walking to the copier or finding a ruler.

Comment author: Prismattic 23 October 2014 06:22:41PM 12 points [-]

Next year I want to see an independent measure of conscientiousness, and compare this between people who bother to answer the digit ratio question and those who don't...

Comment author: Prismattic 23 October 2014 05:27:51PM 3 points [-]

I'm not the sure the optimal point is going to fall in the same place depending on which factors you choose to weight. It would not surprise me at all to discover that the amount of exercise I get (typically, 6 days a week, for a total of around 7-8 hours of strenuous exercise, plus an hour or so of walking /week, and I stand at my desk at work) is well above the optimum for long-term joint health or longevity, but it's right where I want it for a) strong antidepressant effect (cardio) and increased confidence (weight training) and b) increased sexual attractiveness.

This isn't hyperbolic discounting; it's just accurate discounting. I'd rather have fewer years of life with higher quality of life than another couple years at the very end where I'm alive but too old to do much of anything.

Comment author: Prismattic 23 October 2014 05:13:52PM *  2 points [-]

Vitamin D, 5000IU daily, year-round. (My latitude is about 38.85 oN, but I think I'd be taking it even further South).

Perhaps once ever 2-3 days I'll also take B6/B12/Folate.

I don't take a multivitamin because I don't want excess Vitamin E.

ETA: Forgot to mention that I add crushed flaxseed to my yoghurt.

Comment author: Prismattic 23 October 2014 05:26:06AM 2 points [-]

In video games, I prefer PvE to PvP and, in fact, largely stopped playing video games because I disliked the focus.

Yet I strongly prefer competitive over cooperative board games.

I haven't figured out why my brain draws this distinction yet.

Comment author: Prismattic 23 October 2014 05:10:01PM 2 points [-]

On further reflection, I like to have control of the pace I play a game. Real-time strategy games against human opponents are stressful, but I don't mind PvP with asynchronous turns. (Even in chess with a clock, I'm not forced to move faster just because my opponent does.)

View more: Prev | Next