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

Comment author: Huluk 26 March 2016 12:55:37AM *  26 points [-]

[Survey Taken Thread]

By ancient tradition, if you take the survey you may comment saying you have done so here, and people will upvote you and you will get karma.

Let's make these comments a reply to this post. That way we continue the tradition, but keep the discussion a bit cleaner.

Comment author: Rixie 31 March 2016 12:25:20PM 27 points [-]

I have taken the survey.

Comment author: Rixie 08 February 2015 03:47:24PM *  0 points [-]

I feel like this thought experiment is less about how to cleverly communicate to Archimedes all the things that he is obviously wrong about and that we are obviously right about, and more about how to try to recognize the potential mistakes within our own way of thinking, as Archimedes was as certain about his geocentric point of view as we are with our heliocentric one. While I think we're right about heliocentrism at least, there may be other seemingly obvious facts that we take for granted, but that future generations will want to yell at us through a chronophone for, and whatever tricks we come up with to get Archimedes to question his beliefs (like giving nonobvious input) may help us to question our own beliefs. But maybe all that was just really really obvious in which case ahhhh I'm sorry.

But besides that, I remember doubting the power structure within my own familial unit as a child (parents are always right, children should always just listen until they turn 18 and become magically responsible) , could communicating that help Archimedes doubt some of the power structures withing Greek society? Maybe it would have him question the arbitrariness of slaves always having to defer to normal citizens, until the point at which they can buy themselves out of slavery and become magically worthy of politics like everyone else?

Comment author: Rixie 26 November 2013 04:23:34AM 21 points [-]

Yay, survey taken!

I loved the Prisoner's Dilemma at the end, I wonder how that will turn out?

In response to Crisis of Faith
Comment author: Rixie 27 August 2013 07:37:11PM 1 point [-]

I started letting go of my faith when I realized that there really isn't much Bayesian evidence for it. Realizing that the majority of the evidence needed to believe something is used just to isolate that something out of all the other possible beliefs finished it off. But I do have one question: If Jesus wasn't magic, where did the Bible even come from? Lee Strobel "proves" that Jesus died and came back from the dead, but his proofs are based on the Bible. Why was the Bible so widely accepted if there wasn't anything extra-special about Jesus after all?

In response to Something to Protect
Comment author: Rixie 27 August 2013 07:08:42PM 0 points [-]

Here I have a question that is slightly unrelated, but I'm looking for a good cognitive science science fair project and I'm having trouble thinking of one that would be not completely impractical for a high-schooler to do, won't take more than a few months, and would be interesting enough to hold people's attention for at least a few minutes before they head off to the physics and medical research projects. No one ever does decent cognitive science projects and I really want to show them that this branch of science can be just as rigorous and awesome as the other ones. Does anyone have any ideas?

In response to Mere Messiahs
Comment author: jeff_gray2 02 December 2007 02:08:11AM 2 points [-]

1: The Bottom Line. since Yeishu probably genuinely believed he would go to Heaven, he doesn't deserve more honor than John Perry

2: Eliezer, whose bias will this article help overcome? Seriously?

Christians won't accept your premise that Jesus died forever. Atheists presumably don't honor him. Muslims honor him as a prophet, and presumably (many islamic 'fundamentalists') don't honor atheist victims of 'jihad*'. 'The church of Judea[sic]' never had much affinity with Jesus to begin with, & Everyone else who uses the 'Jesus was a great moral teacher' schtick can be beaten into submission with Christianity's so-called unintended consequences. Who is left to persuade?

3: I 2nd Nigel, & I had thought the post had made the point with the John Perry anecdote. Much of the rest feels gratuitous. (& will tend to fill the comments w/ content-lite responses.)

In response to comment by jeff_gray2 on Mere Messiahs
Comment author: Rixie 28 July 2013 12:18:47PM 1 point [-]

It's not necessarily solely for the purpose of overcoming bias. He's also telling the truth and letting us see things in a different light.

I think he's saying that atheists should (to a certain extent) honour him, and Christians should believe that he died forever. I'm not familiar with the other religions, but just because someone believes something now, doesn't mean that that will never change. Isn't the whole point of this blog to spread truth around?

In response to The Halo Effect
Comment author: Rixie 28 July 2013 12:00:54PM 0 points [-]

I wonder if this really one hundred percent bias? I hate saying this, but when I moved to a new school 3 years ago I immediately noticed one person that I found extremely unattractive, and he later turned out to be one of the "bad kids", and did measurably bad things with two of his friends that no one besides them did. I don't think it was hindsight, I remember the exact moment when I first saw him and thought that he wasn't that attractive.

Could there possibly be some correlation between attractiveness and some other good qualities?

Comment author: Zubon 28 November 2007 01:49:34PM 20 points [-]

When buying $10 dust specks, do not get carried away and buy 3^^^3 of them. You won't save any money that way.

Comment author: Rixie 28 July 2013 11:42:49AM 1 point [-]

What is 3^^^3? I see it a lot here, why is it special?

In response to comment by sfb on Mundane Magic
Comment author: DanielLC 12 October 2012 06:55:31AM 2 points [-]

The curse of visible intent.

That can be pretty useful. If everyone knows that you can't lie, they'll be much more likely to trust you. If you need money, you could just borrow it from someone and promise to return it with interest. They'll happily lend it to you, knowing that you intend to pay it back. You might change your mind, but you probably won't, so it's worth while for the interest.

In response to comment by DanielLC on Mundane Magic
Comment author: Rixie 27 July 2013 01:16:37AM 0 points [-]

But then you can't just borrow and not give it back.

In response to Fake Reductionism
Comment author: Scott_Scheule 18 March 2008 12:11:32AM 3 points [-]

I'm bothered by the tactic of explaining a groups' qualms by postulating they don't really understand the material. It's just a shade shy of "Anti-reductionists are dumb."

Comment author: Rixie 27 July 2013 12:37:22AM 4 points [-]

The thing abut reductionists is that they think they're right.

Therefore, anti-reductionists are wrong.

Which means that anti-reductionists either don't have all the facts, or are choosing to ignore the facts, or are succumbing to other belief-in-belief-type biases.

When you're talking about someone you know to be wrong, the kindest thing that you can say about them is that they didn't have all their facts right.

View more: Next