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

Meetup : Cleveland Ohio Meetup

0 Raelifin 23 July 2013 06:51PM

Discussion article for the meetup : Cleveland Ohio Meetup

WHEN: 28 July 2013 02:00:00PM (-0400)

WHERE: Gypsy Bean Coffee, Cleveland, OH

Time and place are tentative. Discussion is occurring on the cleveland mailing list: less-wrong-cleveland@googlegroups.com

Discussion article for the meetup : Cleveland Ohio Meetup

Comment author: Raelifin 22 December 2012 02:24:15PM 0 points [-]

The Cleveland meetup was canceled due to people being busy and sick.

Comment author: Raelifin 22 December 2012 02:23:37PM 0 points [-]

This meetup was canceled due to people being sick and busy.

Meetup : Less Wrong: Cleveland

1 Raelifin 06 December 2012 03:27AM

Discussion article for the meetup : Less Wrong: Cleveland

WHEN: 09 December 2012 03:00:23PM (-0500)

WHERE: Cleveland

Four of us will be meeting on the 9th. If you're interested and in the area, send an email!

Discussion group: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/less-wrong-cleveland

Location to be decided.

Discussion article for the meetup : Less Wrong: Cleveland

Comment author: gjm 13 November 2012 10:52:14AM 1 point [-]

Beginning it with "here are the people you're likely to hear about" doesn't exactly dispel the, um, phyggish impression some people have of LW. For that matter, if anyone's going to have difficulty participating in (or making sense of) your discussions without knowing those names then the phyggish impression shouldn't be dispelled.

Comment author: Raelifin 13 November 2012 03:42:21PM *  0 points [-]

(Primary author, here.)

This is a good point, and obviously there's a lot of tension between phyggish meme-sharing/codewords and a desire to be more inclusive and not so scary. An earlier draft actually made it an explicit point to talk about the perception of phyg, as I think it's one of the biggest PR issues we have.

The pamphlet was written to try and help people not feel so overwhelmed by coming into a space so loaded down with jargon, but you're right that it perpetuates the problem. I encourage people to copy and edit this, perhaps tailoring it to the level of jargon and the specific goals of your group.

Here's a link to a non-pdf version.

In response to Does My Vote Matter?
Comment author: Raelifin 05 November 2012 06:05:43PM 2 points [-]

voting is rational if you...

This is a minor objection, but voting can't be rational and it can't be irrational. Voting isn't a system of thinking. You may want to rephrase your argument as "voting is optimal if you..."

Comment author: Raelifin 05 November 2012 06:12:09PM 0 points [-]

And as a followup, even if you're correct about the probabilities (which I'm not sure you are), it's not intrinsically optimal to vote, even if you care about the outcome. One must always weigh the opportunity cost of an action, and the opportunity cost depends on the person.

If a superintelligent AI is being built and an equal amount of Yudkowsky's time will decrease the extinction probability by the same amount as voting would increase candidate X's election probability, then it's clearly not optimal for Yudkowsky to vote, because the neg-utility of extinction far outweighs the neg-utility of an unfortunate election.

In response to Does My Vote Matter?
Comment author: Raelifin 05 November 2012 06:05:43PM 2 points [-]

voting is rational if you...

This is a minor objection, but voting can't be rational and it can't be irrational. Voting isn't a system of thinking. You may want to rephrase your argument as "voting is optimal if you..."

Comment author: Raelifin 30 October 2012 03:49:41AM 1 point [-]

Hello northern Ohio! My name is Max, and I recently moved up here from Columbus. I've attended a few LW meetups before, and would enjoy getting a regular thing happening in Cleveland. ^_^

Comment author: Hedonic_Treader 09 February 2012 02:25:31PM 1 point [-]

I tried. And it has cost me quality of life.

Comment author: Raelifin 10 February 2012 03:28:57AM 2 points [-]

Be aware that having tried and failed at something does not mean it does not work. That's generalizing from a single example. Remember: “The apprentice laments 'My art has failed me', while the master says 'I have failed my art'”. This is not to say you're necessarily wrong, just that we need to take a data-based approach, rather than rely on anecdotes.

Comment author: Raelifin 03 February 2012 12:38:17AM 8 points [-]

The elevator pitch that got me most excited about rationality is from Raising the Sanity Waterline. It only deals with epistemic rationality, which is an issue, and it, admittedly, is best fit towards people who belong to a sanity-focused minority, like atheism or something political. It was phrased with regard to religion originally, so I'll keep it this way here, but it can easily be tailored.

"What is rationality?"

Imagine you're teaching a class to deluded religious people, and you want to get them to change their mind and become atheists, but you absolutely cannot talk about religion in any way. What would you do? You'd have to go deeper than talking about religion itself. You'd have to teach your students how to think clearly and actually reevaluate their beliefs. That's (epistemic) rationality.

"Why is rationality important? Shouldn't we focus on religion first?"

By focusing on rationality itself you not only can approach religion in a non-threatening way, but you can also align yourself with other sane people who may care about economics or politics or medicine. By working together you can get their support, even though they may not care about atheism per se.

View more: Next