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

Comment author: Brillyant 16 January 2017 05:15:57PM 1 point [-]

I see like 10 posts there.

Perhaps you are looking at the "RECENT POSTS" section rather than the section I mentioned?

Maybe you should do some debiasing, practice being well-calibrated, read the sequences and try again later?

I'll work on this.

Maybe you could work on reading?

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 16 January 2017 05:23:49PM *  0 points [-]

No it's definitely "RECENT ON RATIONALITY BLOGS" section ;)

Comment author: Brillyant 16 January 2017 04:44:13PM 7 points [-]

My "RECENT ON RATIONALITY BLOGS" section on the right sidebar is blank.

If this isn't just me, and remains this way for long, I predict LW traffic will drop markedly as I primarily use LW habitually as a way to access SSC, and I'd bet my experience is not unique in this way.

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 16 January 2017 04:49:03PM *  4 points [-]

Maybe you're just not rational enough to be shown that content? I see like 10 posts there.

MIRI has invented a proprietary algorithm that uses the third derivative of your mouse cursor position and click speed to predict your calibration curve, IQ and whether you would one-box on Newcomb's problem with a correlation of 95%. LW mods have recently combined those into an overall rationality quotient which the site uses to decide what level of secret rationality knowledge you are permitted to see.

Maybe you should do some debiasing, practice being well-calibrated, read the sequences and try again later?

EDIT: Some people seem to be missing that this is intended as humor ............

Comment author: TiffanyAching 15 January 2017 05:43:35PM 0 points [-]

Ooh there's a cool idea, I hadn't thought of that.

Another angle is the possibility that vastly-improved directly-implanted translators - a babelfish, basically - might make the whole thing moot. You learn your first language and then have absolutely no need, ever, to learn another. Language could be more or less frozen wherever it stands at the time. That's if the technology is universally available - things get even more interesting if it was only available to the wealthy, or to citizens of wealthy nations.

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 15 January 2017 09:05:04PM 0 points [-]

A babelfish is probably never going to be good enough to fully replace actually knowing the language; to start with due to different word order in different languages you'll get something delayed and awkward. It will probably never capture slang and punning properly. Some languages can express some concepts very well, others struggle with those concepts and are awkward.

Babelfish are coming, and they will be very useful, but I kind of expect them to accelerate the drive towards everyone knowing a bit of English.

Comment author: TiffanyAching 15 January 2017 04:33:28PM 4 points [-]

That's true, but every term you could use to describe misleading, counterfactual or just basically horrible statements can also be used as a rhetorical weapon without regard to whether it's actually applicable in a given case. Lies, propaganda, fake news, twisted facts, hate speech, political correctness - you can use any of them to shut the door on argument. "Bias" is used like that often - "you're just biased!" - but we still have to deal with bias as a real thing.

That said I'm not sure "Dangerous speech" is a useful new term itself. It's very vague, and it has an Orwellian ring to it, and it seems like it would derail many discussions of the actual content of the speech into arguments about definitions of "dangerous". If anyone wants to defend the utility of it, go ahead and I'll hear it, but I'm usually only in favour of introducing new terms when they actually fill a gap. We already have terms like "lies" and "hate speech" and "incitement to violence" and what have you, so I'm not sure what "dangerous speech" would add.

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 15 January 2017 08:53:32PM 2 points [-]

"Inciting violence" is a lot better than "hate speech" because it's a lot less flexible and less open to reinterpretation.

I actually think that "fake news" is less bad than "dangerous news", because you can classify almost anything you disagree with as "dangerous" and kind of be correct, but there are some things that one cannot classify as "fake" without opening oneself up to a severe counter-attack.

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 15 January 2017 12:13:57PM 9 points [-]

"Dangerous speech" could easily become a weapon to attack and surpress views you don't like.

This has already happened with "Hate speech" and "Fake news".

Comment author: gjm 13 January 2017 01:01:27PM 3 points [-]

I think it might be good to have a universal language, but I think it's vanishingly unlikely that Esperanto or any other deliberately manufactured language will become one. The way languages get (anything like) universal is by being widely used, and the way languages get widely used is by being widely useful. I don't see any plausible way for something like Esperanto to achieve that. English might become a universal language. Maybe, depending on how the world goes over the next few decades, Chinese or Russian or something. But it won't be Esperanto. Pretty much everyone whose knowledge of Esperanto would make learning Esperanto valuable already speaks English.

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 14 January 2017 02:18:33AM *  1 point [-]

Human augmentation may radically lower the difficulty of learning a new natural language. Maybe they'll give us a drug that puts our brains back into child mode for language acquisition.

If that happened, then the market for conlangs might look interesting.

Comment author: gjm 13 January 2017 01:01:27PM 3 points [-]

I think it might be good to have a universal language, but I think it's vanishingly unlikely that Esperanto or any other deliberately manufactured language will become one. The way languages get (anything like) universal is by being widely used, and the way languages get widely used is by being widely useful. I don't see any plausible way for something like Esperanto to achieve that. English might become a universal language. Maybe, depending on how the world goes over the next few decades, Chinese or Russian or something. But it won't be Esperanto. Pretty much everyone whose knowledge of Esperanto would make learning Esperanto valuable already speaks English.

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 14 January 2017 02:16:14AM 1 point [-]

English has the advantage that England is no longer a very powerful country and I don't think many important countries hate us that much. Therefore it feels more politically neutral to speak English.

I think Mandarin is the only realistic competition, but it will be hard for people outside of the far east to learn. And much of the far east currently feels like China is trying to dominate them, so they would rather use English.

Comment author: Elo 11 January 2017 03:20:40AM 1 point [-]

fix up this wall of text or I am removing this post for being too spam like.

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 14 January 2017 01:55:18AM *  1 point [-]

It's kind of entertaining... like watching a road accident in slow motion.

Might be instructive to keep around as a cautionary example of rationality-woo.

Comment author: Viliam 12 January 2017 11:13:31AM 5 points [-]

Yeah, I noticed that the page is shorter now, and has a new link or two. I just think you are solving a wrong problem.

First, it is a part of common knowledge on LW that people can become emotionally attached to an idea. It's just considered to be a bad thing, something that makes people less rational. You seem to believe that if "logic" is the thing you fall in love with, it will be okay. But talking about "logic" is not the same as thinking and acting rationally.

What I am trying to say here is that from LW point of view you are making elementary mistakes in logic, and you keep repeating them over and over again, because you seem to not bother to get familiar with things that are common knowledge here. You are not prepared for this audience, and unless you do something about it, updating your wiki page and posting the link here will be a waste of time.

Second, this whole "logic nation" and "clicking" thing seems extremely self-referential. People who "clicked" keep talking about the fact that they "clicked" -- as far as I know, that is the only observable consequence of "clicking". The only exception seems to be Athene himself, a YouTube celebrity; he does some impressive things, for example is good at poker. But "a popular person endorses X" is not the same as "X will also make you popular". (As an analogy, there are probably many Hollywood actors that talk nicely about homeopathy, but that should not be taken as a proof that using homeopathy will make you a Hollywood star.)

Shortly, there is zero proof that "clicking" actually does anything; other than giving you a community of people who also talk about "clicking" all day long. Having a group of friends with a common topic is a good thing, but you could achieve the same result by choosing e.g. science fiction to be the thing you are emotional about. If you encourage each other to work out, eat a healthy diet, and study math, that's better than most groups. So...

Maybe the right thing to focus on would be this: Let's talk about how useful it can be for humans to have a group of friends whose goal is to live rationally, and to encourage each other to live rationally. To eat a healthy diet and exercise, to study math and then debate interesting topics together. That is the good part.

And leave out all the "neuro-Spinozism" and other mumbo-jumbo, which is only there to make this idea feel more magical.

My question is what exactly is your situation here: Do you already have such group, or are you trying to find one? Because if you already have such group, then the best way to attract people would be to describe what it is like to be in such group. If your group is awesome, and you describe how awesome it is, you won't need to update the wiki page; people will naturally want to have the same kind of experience.

On the other hand, if you don't have such a group, and your posts on LW are attempts to find other people who would want to start such group, I think there are two ways that would work much better. First, stick with the "logic nation" folks, and post somewhere on their forums that you like their ideas in general, but you don't want to move and live with Athene, so you are looking for a similar-minded people in your area, to hang out with. Hopefully, someone will respond. Second option is to use LW instead, in which case your situation would be much easier if you just stop focusing on Athene, and instead read the Sequences and join the nearest LW meetup. Because our stated goals seem to overlap.

The essential question is whether "clicking" can be good for you even if you don't talk about it all the time. In other words, whether it really improves your life, or just makes a nice topic to talk about. If it doesn't improve your life, then what's the point? And if it does improve your life, then you can just "click" privately, and attend local LW meetups -- thus gaining benefits both from "clicking" and from having a community that shares 90% of your goals.

You could even do the rationalist "taboo" thing, and introduce your ideas to the LW community without mentioning "clicking" or Athene explicitly. Is that even possible? Or would leaving out Athene and his keywords from the equation ruin everything? If it would, then that is a red flag. I know people in the rationalist community who are unimpressed with Eliezer, but agree with the idea of thinking and living more rationally, overcoming cognitive biases, etc. You can benefit from the rationalist community while ignoring Eliezer. Can you similarly benefit from "clicking" while ignoring Athene? Does following his ideas help you develop your own power, or does it only make you his follower? Are you trying to find a god, or become a god?

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 14 January 2017 01:49:03AM 1 point [-]

make this idea feel more magical.

I lol'd....

Is this stuff for real or is it trolling?

Comment author: Jiro 13 January 2017 09:29:33PM 0 points [-]

The point is that saying "they wouldn't have won if they didn't do X", in a context where you are trying to say something useful, implies that X is some special thing that was only done by them, not that X is something that everyone does. Nobody says "Trump would have lost if he had failed to breathe", because everyone running a campaign needs to breathe and saying that you don't win if you don't breathe is obvious, trivial, and tells you nothing special about Trump.

And "the pro-Brexit campaign did special things which the anti-Brexit campaign did not also do" has not been well-supported here.

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 13 January 2017 09:48:47PM 0 points [-]

Well according to the article, he and his team did do special things. Of course you may not believe that, but he presents a plausible narrative.

View more: Next