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

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 01 February 2015 03:44:31PM *  -1 points [-]

Thats one of the standard responses to scepticism:

Tu quoque, or performative contradiction.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 01 February 2015 07:44:43PM 1 point [-]

I wasn't intending the question rhetorically. If G0W51 is so concerned with universal scepticism, how does he manage to act as if he wasn't, which he observes he does?

In response to comment by Ishaan on My Skepticism
Comment author: Eitan_Zohar 01 February 2015 05:23:01AM *  1 point [-]

Why does everyone refer to it as "epistemic nihilism"? Philosophical skepticism ('global' skepticism) was always the term I read and used.

In response to comment by Eitan_Zohar on My Skepticism
Comment author: RichardKennaway 01 February 2015 01:51:06PM 1 point [-]

"Epistemic nihilism" is not a name, but a description. Philosophical skepticism covers a range of things, of which this is one.

In response to My Skepticism
Comment author: RichardKennaway 01 February 2015 10:27:33AM 1 point [-]
In response to My Skepticism
Comment author: RichardKennaway 01 February 2015 09:55:17AM 2 points [-]

With such skepticism, how are you even able to write anything, or understand the replies? Or do anything at all?

Comment author: Davidmanheim 31 January 2015 12:38:51AM 0 points [-]

Partially. It's related to how most of us are in fact biased, and taken to the extreme, the consequence of our implicit thought pattern.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 31 January 2015 08:00:57AM 0 points [-]

I think the only answer to that is, speak for yourself.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 28 January 2015 02:34:28PM 15 points [-]

Imagine casting a "speed ×100" spell on a dumb person. Would that make them a smart person? No.

On the other hand, if we would cast a "speed ×2" spell on a smart person, it would appear to make them smarter. They would be able to solve difficult problems in half the time, right?

So... there seems to be some connection, but also a difference. Speed can make you more productive, and productivity is a signal of intelligence. But if you make systematic mistakes in thinking, you will only be making them faster.

Smart people in the technology world no long believe they can think their way to success.

Because they already are thinking. If you are already thinking at near 100% of your capacity, telling you "think more" is not going to help. The right advice in that situation could be "instead of thinking without experimenting, try thinking and experimenting". But one should give that advice only to people who are already thinking.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 30 January 2015 11:53:39AM 2 points [-]

The Law of the Minimum seems metaphorically relevant. "Growth is controlled not by the total amount of resources available, but by the scarcest resource."

Intelligence, speed, time, energy, charisma, money, able-bodiedness, a like-minded community, etc.: any of these may be someone's limiting factor.

Comment author: b_sen 30 January 2015 03:25:50AM 0 points [-]

I realized why Quirrell gave Hermione a Dreadful grade, rather than just failing her. Recall from canon that there are three failing grades:

[passing grades]



[redacted for explaining a joke]

But a Poor grade indicates that the student can repeat the course. Death is final, there are no do-overs.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 30 January 2015 11:42:43AM 0 points [-]

[redacted for explaining a joke]

Could you rot13 it? I have not read canon and am unlikely to.

Comment author: Davidmanheim 29 January 2015 06:29:37AM 0 points [-]

Homer Simpson, on relativity of happiness: "When something great happens to one person, everyone else's life gets a little worse."

Source: http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=the-simpsons&episode=s26e08

Comment author: RichardKennaway 29 January 2015 10:25:43AM 1 point [-]

This is an anti-rationality quote, right?

Comment author: Punoxysm 28 January 2015 09:20:55PM 0 points [-]

Exactly. The world is complicated, apparently contradictory characteristics can co-inhabit the same person, and frameworks are frequently incorrect in proportion to their elegance, but people still think in frameworks and prototypes so I think these are two good prototypes.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 28 January 2015 10:04:17PM 2 points [-]

Like Hogwarts houses? Star signs? MBTI? Enneagram? Keirsey Temperaments? Big 5? Oldham Personality Styles? Jungian Types? TA? PC/NPC? AD&D Character Classes? Four Humours? 7 Personality Types? 12 Guardian Spirits?

I made one of those up. Other people made the rest of them up. And Google tells me the one I made up already exists.

Where does Professional/Auteur come from?

Comment author: Punoxysm 28 January 2015 07:24:52PM 3 points [-]

It's not burdensome detail; its a list of potential and correlated personality traits. You don't need the conjunction of all these traits to qualify. More details provide more places to relate to the broad illustration I'm trying to make. But I'll try to state the core elements that I want to be emphasized, so that it's clearer which details aren't as relevant.

Professionals are more interested in achieving results, and do not have a specific attachment to a philosophy of process or decision-making to reach those results.

Auteurs are very interested in process, and have strong opinions about how process and decision-making should be done. They are interested in results too, but they do not treat it as separate from process.

And I'll add that like any supposed personality type, the dichotomy I'm trying to draw is fluid in time and context for any individual.

But I think it's worth considering because it reflects a spectrum of the ways people handle their relationship with their work and with coworkers.

Essentially, treat it as seriously as a personality test.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 28 January 2015 08:55:29PM 0 points [-]

Essentially, treat it as seriously as a personality test.

Ah. That seriously. :)

View more: Next