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

Comment author: yli 07 October 2012 08:27:55AM *  1 point [-]

If you're willing to say "X" whenever you believe X, then if you say "I believe X" but aren't willing to say "X", your statement that you believe X is actually false. But in conversations, the rule that you're willing to say everything you believe doesn't hold.

Comment author: Pudlovich 07 April 2015 09:46:46AM 0 points [-]

Not exactly. If you assign 80% probability to something, you're still allowed to say that you believe it. It's just an evaluation of your model, I believe.

Comment author: TimS 10 October 2012 08:41:56PM 2 points [-]

My mental model of Eliezer Yudkowsky is that he thinks all postmodernism is nonsense - as others have noted. If he intended to say something equivalent to "Postmodernist got this point right" then what he wrote is not how I expect he would say it. Further, the attack that I am reading into his words is a standard understanding of postmodernism in this community.

But the community seems to agree with you more than I - so I'm adjusting slightly in favor of me misreading Eliezer's intent.

Comment author: Pudlovich 06 April 2015 09:25:30PM 0 points [-]

I certainly read it as "postmodernists notice that the word true is used as mere emphasis <and so they are really angry when someone talks about 'truth', hence relativism>".

Your interpretation doesn't exactly align with the essence of postmodernism (as I see it, I'm no expert).

Comment author: [deleted] 26 March 2015 01:33:36PM 0 points [-]

I think they meant it more like "Spending an hour of time on doing X will feel the same as spending $8 on doing X from the inside."

I may be wrong, though!

In response to comment by [deleted] on Money: The Unit of Caring
Comment author: Pudlovich 26 March 2015 02:30:34PM 1 point [-]

It makes sense, but I can't entirely convince myself that it's the best way to look at it. A gut feeling that something's wrong - I cannot throw out the time from the equation.

Ad absurdum - I look at everything that I can do with my free time and decide nothing is worth paying $8 per hour. So what do I do? Maybe work, so I can get my $8 back. Yeah, that's the idea.

I'm not convinced that it's the best way to think about it.

Comment author: AlexanderRM 15 November 2014 02:23:58AM 0 points [-]

This sounds like an excellent idea. I personally am quite stingy with money but waste time with reckless abandon. I really ought to attach a dollar value per unit of time. Of course, I haven't done this because I'm worried that if I do this I'll be unable to spend any time on anything (if I had to spend $8 to spend an hour on anything... I can't imagine that at all). I suppose the problem here is that I'm valuing my money too highly and need to lower the attached value per dollar. I could probably start by attaching an unrealistically low value to the time, like $1 an hour perhaps, and then gradually upping it.

Comment author: Pudlovich 26 March 2015 12:00:19PM *  0 points [-]

I think you're misapplying the method. "Pay $8 to spend an hour on anything" - you're counting the cost twice: one time spending the money, and the second spending the time. Maybe a better metric would be "I'd rather be paid $8 for spending an hour doing exactly nothing".

I may be wrong, though.

Comment author: stcredzero 07 December 2012 09:41:30PM 2 points [-]

Science is much worse at figuring out what is right because it's method of determining what is right is "Of all the possible hypotheses, we'll eliminate the wrong ones and choose the most probably of what exists".

Someone should write a Sherlock script, where someone uses Sherlock's principle: "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth," against him, so that he decisively takes the wrong action.

Comment author: Pudlovich 22 December 2014 12:30:14PM 3 points [-]

It was done by Doyle himself. In 1898 he published two short stories - "The Lost Special" and "The Man with the Watches", where "an amateur reasoner of some celebrity" participates in solving a crime mystery and fails. It was written after Doyle killed off Sherlock, so he is probably parodying the character - he was quite tired with him at the time.