= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
No, seriously, why is it that non-religious movements lack this oomph, this particular eagerness, that the religious have?
Careful of a false, or at least not subtle enough, premise.
We shall overcome
We shall overcome
We shall overcome some day
In response to
"The Book Of Mormon" or Belief In Belief, The Musical
Edited that mistake out. It might also be a matter of external perception. When one sings "Sunday Bloody Sunday" or "We Are The World", people treat it as fake fuzzy drivel that tastes like diabetes at best. "Darned Beatniks (or insert some other inaccurate label here), they don't understand how the world works!".
Religious people, on the other hand (especially those belonging to very popular religions or religions you are supposed to believe in), seem to be exempt from this perception: no matter how outlandish and naïve they can get, people will admire them for believing in the face of overwhelming evidence, and for not letting failure and injustice and persecution bring them down.
Martyrs are a particularly extreme version of this, one Abrahamics seem to love.
Perhaps a part of the source of the humour of "The Book Of Mormon" is that Mormonism is "mainstream" (that is, Christian) enough to be recognized as something that it's noble to believe in, yet unorthodox enough that some of its tenets will seem absurd to most other denominations. If it were a religion that we, the audience, were not familiar with at all, and that had no connection to the faiths, the affiliations, that we were born unto... No matter how otherwise popular, it wouldn't be nearly as funny. In fact, it would be perceived as a cruel mockery.
And now you've made me imagine a "Book of X", where X would be an especially strange and obscure Islamic denomination with ambitions of proselytism (in Africa, sure, why not), and how other Muslims would react to such a show...
"The Book Of Mormon" or Belief In Belief, The Musical
This song is... beautiful... Tragically so... It's like someone took some of the sequences here and made a checklist of everything that's wrong with religion, and why it still works and why it can stir the heart of noble, brave, generous people... The main character is a Mormon missionary, he was always groomed to be a believer, and his cheering and professing was rewarded, and he was happy. Then he was sent to some warzone in Africa, to convert people there to his faith (And I believe that in 1978, God changed his mind about black people! You can be a Mormon!). Except the people really aren't interested in what he preaches, and might easily shoot him in the head for it (But "What's so scary about that?", when you have an immortal soul and know you are doing the right thing? Whatever the outcome, you win!). But, see, that's okay, as long as he believes wholeheartedly and without a shred of doubt, everything will be fine... (You cannot just believe part way, you have to believe in it all. My problem was doubting the Lord's will, instead of standing tall!). Of course, if it does not turn out fine, that's all your fault for not believing enough...
You know, I'd like to say something smart to start the discussion over, but right now I'm just feeling too emotional... You know what, I'll just post the lyrics for the song, and let you guys suggest the adequate potholes for every instance of... blatant, obvious, categorized insanitiy irrationality that this song demonstrates...
Ever since I was a child I tried to be the best
So, what happened?
My family and friends all said I was blessed
So, what happened?
It was supposed to be all so exciting to be teaching of Christ 'cross the sea,
But, I allowed my faith to be shaken.
Oh, what's the matter with me?
I've always longed to help the needy
To do the things I never dared.
This was the time for me to step up
So, then, why was I so scared?
A warlord who shoots people in the face.
What's so scary about that?
I must trust that my Lord is mightier
And always has my back.
Now I must be completely devout
I can't have even one shred of doubt...
I believe that the Lord, God, created the universe.
I believe that He sent His only Son to die for my sins.
And I believe that ancient Jews built boats and sailed to America
I am a Mormon,
And a Mormon just believes.
You cannot just believe part way,
You have to believe in it all.
My problem was doubting the Lord's will
Instead of standing tall.
I can't allow myself to have any doubt.
It's time to set my worries free.
Time to show the world what Elder Price is about!
And share the power inside of me...
I believe that God has a plan for all of us.
I believe that plan involves me getting my own planet.
And I believe; that the current President of The Church, Thomas Monson, speaks directly to God.
I am A Mormon,
And, dang it! a Mormon just believes!
I know that I must go and do
The things my God commands.
I realize now why He sent me here.
If You ask the Lord in faith,
He will always answer you.
Just believe in Him
And have no fear!
I believe that Satan has a hold of you
I believe that the Lord, God, has sent me here
And I believe that in 1978, God changed his mind about black people!
You can be a Mormon..
A Mormon who just believes!
And now I can feel the excitement.
This is the moment I was born to do.
And I feel so incredible
To be sharing my faith with you.
The Scriptures say that if you ask in faith,
If you ask God Himself he'll know.
But you must ask Him without any doubt
And let your spirit grow...
I believe that God lives on a planet called Kolob.
I believe that Jesus has his own planet as well.
And I believe that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri.
If you believe, the Lord will reveal it.
And you'll know it's all true. You'll just feel it.
You'll be a Mormon
And, by gosh!
A Mormon just believes!
Oh, I believe.
I believe.
Okay, now with the actual performance. Try not to laugh, and fail...
But this kinda raises an interesting question. Why is it, in fact, so thrilling, to share a faith that one actually doubts, with other people? Is it some sort of resonance? Like, "whew, he believes too, that's evidence towards me being right and this being true, right?". What's that, Affective Death Spiral, Uncritical Supercriticality, or not exactly either but something related? And why is it that it does not happen with certain other faiths, such as, say, the Church of England, or Judaism?
Also, a guy with the sheer agape of Elder Price could easily work for some other humanistic enterprise, such as an NGO... But why is it that I just can't imagine someone singing
"I belieeeeve, into the UN Declaration of Human Rights of 1948!
I beliieeeeeeve that every man has a right to live,
And I beliieeeeeve that every person was born equal before the law!
Just belieeeeeve that every man should be able to travel freely (within their country)!
I do belieeeeeve that every person has a right to property!
I am a (???????), and I've got reasons why I believe!"
No, seriously, why is it that non-religious movements seem to lack this oomph, this particular eagerness, that the religious are often portrayed bearing? There's untapped human potential, here, friends, and we're letting it go to waste. Reversed stupidity is not intelligence. So, how do we infuse this kind of zeal, of enthusiasm, into, say, the Less Wrong brand of Secular Humanism? Here's a challenge for ya: edit "I Believe" to fit your actual creed (no need for it to be consensual here). Don't be afraid to sound silly, what you're supposed to carry carry across is emotional passion that compels people to follow you.
The word 'Tantrum' invokes in my mind a picture of either a child or someone with an overwhelmingly high perception of their status responding to things not going their way by acting out emotionally in violation of usual norms of behavior that apply to everyone else.
I would have phrased it as "Eliezer should put more effort into not occasionally being an arrogant dick."
I did not want to make that point. Acting out when things don't go his way is a distinctly different behavior pattern with different connotations with respect to arrogance. I'm going to stick with tantrum because it just seems to be exactly what I'm trying to convey.
I think he did the right thing there. He did it badly and clumsily, but had I been in his place I'd have had a hard time getting a grip on my emotions, and we know how sensitive and emotional he is.
Rational Wiki are great guys. We try to watch our own step, but it's nice to have someone else watching us too, who can understand and sympathize with what we do.
Learned Helplessness
I stumbled upon this interesting little video. It links to many others on the same topic, which I found surprisingly interesting, and would like to discuss. What is it that makes one lose confidence when they see others succeed at the tasks they fail, to the point of being unable to preform tasks that they otherwise should know how to do? Could it be that this phenomenon holds parts of the key to failure rates throughout the education systems worldwide, as well as other self-destructive, irrational reaction-to-failure phenomena throughout one's life?
BTW, maybe we should be able to post Youtube videos on-page?
In response to
"Can't Say No" Spending
People are not really able to see their actions as part of reality rather than some immaterial force or holy ghost that changes reality from the outside. But can you blame them? You need a mirror for that sort of trick. So they will simply deny that reality with their actions included may be very different, that if health care is free people will seek it even when it is not needed. The problem here is thinking people will act as if you have not acted.
if health care is free people will seek it even when it is not needed
You have paid for your private insurance. Do you go to the doctor as much as you possibly could? When you are healthy, you have better things to do with your life, than travel the city from one appointment to the other.
So, are you going to deny that seventy-year-old their new organs?
Yes, it's amazing how many bad decisions are made because it's heartbreaking to just say no.
More like it's potentially corrupting, but yeah, that too.
So, are you going to deny that seventy-year-old their new organs?
Yes, unless there is nobody else that can use them. If my watching of House tells me anything it is standard practice to prioritize by this kind of criteria.
I like this answer, if only for emotional reasons :). I also think the vast majority of seventy-years-old would be compelled by this argument.
what part of this scenario don't you understand
Resources are limited and medical demand is not. The medical response time if the President of the United States gets shot is less for than if anyone else gets shot. It's not possible to give everyone as much health protection as the president. So it's not a scenario. I can imagine each person as being the only person on earth with such care, and I can imagine imagining a single hypothetical world has each person with that level of care, but I can't actually imagine it.
there's a lot of intermediate points
That indicates that no argument about the type of thing to be done will be based on a difference in kind. It won't resemble saying that we should switch from what happens at present to "no-one being left to die just because they happen not to have a given amount of money". We currently allow some people to die based on rationing, and you are literally proposing the impossible to connote that you would prefer a different rationing system, but then you get tripped up when sometimes speaking as if the proposal is literally possible.
deciding how much we want to pay for
Declaring that someone has a right is declaring one's willingness to help that person get something from others over their protests. We currently allow multimillionaires, and we allow them to spend all their money trying to discover a cure for their child's rare or unique disease, and we allow people to drive in populated areas.
We allow people to spend money in sub-optimal ways. Resources being limited means that not every disease gets the same attention. Allowing people to drive in populated areas is implicitly valuing the fun and convenience of some people driving over the actuarially inevitable death and carnage to un-consenting pedestrians.
What this means specifically depends on the means available at any given time.
I don't understand how you want to ration or limit people, in an ideal world, because you have proposed the literally impossible as a way of gesturing towards a different rationing system (infinitely) short of that ideal and (as far as I can see) not different in kind than any other system.
By analogy, you don't describe what you mean when you declare "infinity" a number preferable to 1206. Do you mean that any number higher than 1206 is equally good? Do you mean that every number is better than its predecessor, no matter what? Since you probably don't, then...what number do you mean? Approximately?
I can perhaps get an idea of the function if you tell me some points of x (resources) and y (what you are proposing).
Your post confuses me a lot: I am being entirely honest about this, there seem to be illusions of transparency and (un)common priors. The only part I feel capable of responding to is the first: I can perfectly imagine every human being having as much medical care as the chief of the wealthiest most powerful organization in the world, in an FAI-regimented society. For a given value of "imagining", of course: I have a vague idea of nanomachines in the bloodstream, implants, etc. I basically expect human bodies to be self-sufficient in taking care of themsleves, and able to acquire and use the necessary raw materials with ease, including being able to medically operate on themselves. The rare cases will be left to the rare specialist, and I expect everyone to be able to take care of the more common problems their bodies and minds may encounter.
As for the rest of your post:
What are people's rationing optimixation functions? Is it possible to get an entire society to agree to a single one, for a given value of "agree"? Or is it that people don't have a consistent optimization function, and that it's not so much a matter of some things being valued over others as a matter of tradition and sheer thoughtless inertia? Yes, I know I am answering questions with questions, but that's all I got right now.
In response to
Inferring Our Desires
This theory seems to debunk the classical "people need an economic incentive to do their jobs": it seems to imply that imposing and economic reward on the tax detracts from the intrinsinc enjoyment of the task by making the task performers think the task is for the sake of the remuneration rather than for its own sake. It also seems to suggest that, were this reward system be removed (but what would it be replaced with, practically speaking?) people might be happier by enjoying their own work.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Isn't fear of exams also due to neural architecture?
How does that work out?