I always thought that the "most civilizations just upload and live in a simulated utopia instead of colonizing the universe" response to the Fermi Paradox was obviously wrong, because it would only take ONE civilization breaking this trend to be visible, and regardless of what the aliens are doing, a galaxy of resources is always useful to have. But i was reading somewhere (I don't remember where) about an interesting idea of a super-Turing computer that could calculate anything, regardless of time constraints and ignoring the halting problem. I think the proposal was to use closed time like curves or something.

This, of course, seemed very far-fetched, but the implications are fascinating. It would be possible to use such a device to simulate an eternity in a moment. We could upload and have an eternity of eudaimonia, without ever having to worry about running out of resources or the heat death of the universe or alien superintelligences. Even if the computer was to be destroyed an instant later, it wouldn't matter to us. If such a thing was possible, then that would be an obvious solution to the Fermi Paradox.

I strongly suspect that the effectiveness of capitalism as a system of economic organization is proportional to how rational agents participating in it are. I expect that capitalism only optimizes against the general welfare when people in a capitalist society make decisions that go against their own long-term values. The more rational a capitalist society is, the more it begins to resemble an economist's paradise.

Oooh, I have advice! I've gotten so much from this site in my first week or two here, and this is my first chance to potentially help someone else :) If you think MBTI personality typing has no value, don't bother with this. It sounds silly, but finding out about Myers-Briggs was actually life-changing for me. Knowing someone's type can help you develop realistic expectations for their behavior, communicate much more effectively, and empathize. Other people are no longer mysteries!

Idk how familiar you are with MBTI, but there are 4 strict dichotomies, and of course some people fall on the borderline for some of them, but one of the more interesting to me is Thinking (not to be confused with intelligence) vs. Feeling (not to be confused with emotion). This gives a thorough explanation, which should help you understand "irrational" people a little better. And once you understand them, you'll be less likely to be offended by them and more likely to get along.

If there's anyone in particular that this is a struggle with, I'd recommend trying to figure out their full personality and reading the profile on the personality page here. When I was little, my strong-willed, very rational ISTP personality conflicted with my mother's ESFJ type and led to many mutual frustrations; we just couldn't relate to each other. Maybe you have some ESFJ types in your life. These are their weaknesses:

*May be unable to correctly judge what really is for the best

*May become spiteful and extremely intractable in the face of clear, logical reasoning

*May be unable to shrug off feelings that others are not "good people"

*May be unable to acknowledge anything that goes against their certainty about the "correct" or "right" way to do things

*May attribute their own problems to arbitrary and unprovable notions about the way people "ought" to behave

*May be at a loss when confronted with situations that require basic technical expertise or clear thinking

*May be oblivious to all but their own viewpoint, valuing their own viewpoint, valuing their own certainties to the exclusion of others

*May be unable to understand verbal logic, and quickly cut off other's explanations

*May be falsely certain of the true needs and feeling of others

*May be extremely vulnerable to superstitions, religious cults, and media manipulation

*May react too quickly and too emotionally in a situation better dealt with in a more pragmatic fashion

They have plenty of very nice strengths too, but seriously, with all these natural weaknesses, it's not their fault they're less rational than you are. That doesn't mean they can't improve, but they're starting from a totally different playing field. If you like your rationality (I know I do!) and think your type is generally better than most others, thank the universe that when it comes to decision making, you were born looking at logic and consistency instead of at people and special circumstances...but don't look down on people who weren't so lucky? Imagine what it's like to be them?

Since discovering MBTI and reading up on my mom's personality type, I've been able to understand and communicate with her soo much better. A story, to illustrate, from back in high school when I first discovered and started to use MBTI:

I prefer driving to passengering. The last time I had driven with my mom, she was napping and woke up to find me driving about 80 in a 65. She was horrified. The next time I offered to drive, she said no. What I wanted to say, which never would have worked: I was just keeping up with traffic, if I get a speeding ticket, it's my own fault and I'll accept the consequences, there wasn't much real danger driving 80 on a clear night with good weather. What I actually said, which did work: Awww, c'mon Mom, let me redeem myself!

Another interesting MBTI fact: Personality type is strongly correlated with religiosity. When I de-converted from Christianity a few months back, I had a conversation with my mom where I predicted that my "Thinking" and "Perceiving" preferences made me far less likely to remain in the faith than she was with "Feeling" and "Judging" preferences. Then I found a study that confirmed it.

I knew that I couldn't convince her that Christianity was wrong by pointing to inconsistencies or evidence, so rather than going on the offensive, I took the defensive side and played on her sympathies, glumly saying, "If Christianity is true, it's lucky for you that your personality type is the second most likely to believe. Unlucky for me that mine is so likely to abandon the faith. People talk about open-mindedness, curiosity, and logic as if they are good qualities, but I guess if Christianity is true, in the grand scheme of eternity we thinker-perceivers really got the short end of the stick, didn't we? People always talk about how it looks like God plays favorites based on culture, but this personality type favoritism seems just as harsh. I guess you should be extra thankful for yours. No matter how hard I prayed for a stronger faith, no matter how much I wanted it, it just didn't happen."

It was that easy! My mom loves me as much as ever, and I love her as much as anyone. :) Our relationship didn't even really take a hit, except for the unfortunate fact that she happens to think if I died today, I would go to hell. But she's convinced this is just a phase, that God will bring me back to him eventually, because in the words of Proverbs 22:6, "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." (A passage you could use as one more piece of evidence against the Bible if you were discussing the matter with someone who looked at logic and consistency rather than people and special circumstances.)

So yeah, I hope this helps at least a little bit! Just go to the personality page and read through the profiles to get a better understanding of how other people operate. It's kind of fun!

What motivates you to be more rational in your everyday life?

I am, however, stronger than most of the villagers, and could take some of the food that the raiders don't scavenge for.

You'd have to be stronger than the group of villagers.

In most scientific fields status is defined as access (or entitlement) to resources (i.e.: food and females, mostly).

Which fields are these? This sounds to me a definition that could be useful in e.g. animal studies, but vastly insufficient when it comes to the complexities of status with regard to humans. E.g. according to this definition, an armed group such as occupiers or raiders who kept forcibly taking resources from the native population would be high status among the population, which seems clearly untrue.

Moreover, I don't think it is the case people can have warm fuzzies for everyone they meet. There's a limited amount of warm fuzzies to be spent. Of course, you can hack the warm-fuzzy system by using such and such body language, just like you could hack mating strategies using PUA techniques before everyone knew about it. But that's a zero-sum game.

What makes you say that?

When making Anki cards, is it more effective to ask the meaning of a term, or to ask what term describes a concept?

Would a boxed AI be able to affect the world in any important way using the computer hardware itself? Like, make electrons move in funky patterns or affect air flow with cooling fans? If so, would it be able to do anything significant?

I believe the effect you describe exists, but I think there are two effects which make it unclear that implementing your suggestions is an overall benefit to the average reader. Firstly, to summarize your position:

Each extra weird belief you have detracts from your ability to spread other, perhaps more important, wierd memes. Therefore normal beliefs should be preferred to some extent, even when you expect them to be less correct or less locally useful on an issue, in order to improve your overall effectiveness at spreading your most highly valued memes.

1. If you have a cluster of beliefs which seem odd in general then you are more likely to share a "bridge" belief with someone. When you meet someone who shares at least one strange belief with you, you are much more likely to seriously consider their other beliefs because you share some common ground and are aware of their ability to find truth against social pressure. For example, an EA vegan may be vastly more able to introduce the other EA memes to a non-EA vegan than a EA non-vegan. Since almost all people have at least some weird beliefs, and those who have weird beliefs with literally no overlap with yours are likely to not be good targets for you to spread positive memes to, increasing your collection of useful and justifiable weird memes may well give you more opportunities to usefully spread the memes you consider most important

2. Losing the absolute focus on forming an accurate map by making concessions to popularity/not standing out in too many ways seems epistemologically risky and borderline dark arts. I do agree that some situations that not advertizing all your weirdness at once may be a useful strategic choice, but am very wary of the effect putting too much focus on this could have on your actual beliefs. You don't want to strengthen your own absurdity heuristic by accident and miss out on more weird but correct and important things.

While I can imagine situations the advice given is correct (especially the for interacting with domain limited policymakers, or people you have a good read on likely reactions to extra weirdness), recommending it in general seems not sufficiently justified and I believe would have significant drawbacks.

I'm at that point in life where I have to make a lot of choices about my future life. I'm considering doing a double major in biochemistry and computer science. I find both of these topics to be fascinating, but I'm not sure if that's the most effective way to help the world. I am comfortable in my skills as an autodidact, and I find myself to be interested in comp sci, biochemistry, physics, and mathematics. I believe that regardless which I actually major in, I could learn any of the others quite well. I have a nagging voice in my head saying that I shouldn't bother learning biochemistry, because it won't be useful in the long term because everything will be based on nanotech and we will all be uploads. Is that a valid point? Or should I just focus on the world as it is now? And should I study something else or does biochem have potential to help the world? I find myself to be very confused about this subject and humbly request any advice.