= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Why are you interacting with an un-filtered human? Your professed chances of a hit are far lower than a miss, unless you go someplace where the culture ups the odds.
Because it's easy enough to ignore people who bore me, and there are a handful of you on here who are worth interacting with. What's more, sometimes 'normal' people do produce something worth reading, I just wouldn't want to share an apartment with them.
Resistance to social pressure is, within reason, largely orthogonal to the ability to contribute useful information to an informed discussion, or cooperate with others on productive tasks.
If you really want to limit the set of people you can usefully interact with, be my guest, but it seems a tad suboptimal.
'Suboptimal' for what? There is no such thing as 'general efficiency', success and failure (and their degress) are meaningless without an actual framework of goals and preference. I simply do not enjoy socially interacting with people like that. I am aware that this includes most of the human race. I happen to find most of the human race useless beyond the buy-sell relationship.
While I appreciate and share your brash disregard for social pressures, I don't think it's inappropriate to expect a modicum of politeness and tact in how people present ideas. Not everyone is immune to such pressure and I don't think saying what amounts to "HTFU, noobcake" is a reasonable way to improve the level of discourse.
Well, I don't very much care about those sorts of people. It's not that I have any desire to aggravate them, but they're usually useless to me as anything but vending machines.
In response to
Sayeth the Girl
Despite being female, I generally find I could not give a damn about alleged 'social' pressures on women, since people who get all weepy because everyone doesn't treat them nice are (in my opinion) laughable, regardless of their sex.
"Comments and posts that casually objectify women or encourage the objectification of women. " Human beings ARE objects. All of them. Whatever an 'autonomous being is', if it exists it is still an object in both the grammatical and ontological sense. I objectify everyone, and it seems absurd not to.
"If you need to use an example with a gender, there's no reason to consider male the default - consider choosing randomly," This just seems silly to me. A total waste of effort. I can't imagine being bothered by the gender of hypothetical people, and especially not by casual use of words which are unisex anyways (such as 'man' for 'human').
"Sweeping generalizations about women" Most sweeping generalizations are flawed, but the amount of stupid things people believe about women is far less ridiculous than the stuff they believe about people they have literally no experience with - such as the Japanese, or Mormons.
"Fawning admiration of pickup artists who attain their fame by the systematic manipulation of women." 'Manipulation'? I though these were 'autonomous' beings? People who can't look after their own social well-being get what coming to them.
"Attention to the privileges of masculinity and attempts to reduce that disparity." The law favors women just as often as it doesn't, especially in various legal disputes. As far as the 'privileges' of men - insofar as they aren't legally enforced, I couldn't give a damn. No one owes you anything.
In response to
comment
by
on
The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Truth About Morality and What To Do About It
I also see that the alleged 'gains' from morality are frequently self-inflated, if not false to begin with; while the alternative - intellectual consistency and a recognition of purposeful action as aimed at subjective satisfaction - is vastly underrated, even by people of a 'libertarian' bent.
Most of this is less controversial here than elsewhere, with the exception of the reduction of all our goals to "subjective satisfaction". Many LWers aspire to rational pursuit of our preferences, but with the important distinctions that
- we recognize that the optimal long-term strategy can differ greatly from the optimal one-shot analysis, and
- we have preferences about some anticipated world-states rather than just anticipated mind-states.
In response to
comment
by
on
The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Truth About Morality and What To Do About It
* we recognize that the optimal long-term strategy can differ greatly from the optimal one-shot analysis, and
* we have preferences about some anticipated world-states rather than just anticipated mind-states.
In response to this I say there is nothing about subjectivist satisfaction which prevents taking these (or anything else) into consideration. Further, I do not mean this in a utility-function sense, but rather 'actual wants derived from valuation forecasts which result in intentionality'.
I'm not sure even AI could have a cardinal utility function, since to be a meaningful 'value' it most motivate action; its theoretical mathematical relationship to other utility-gains and losses is irrelevant to this actual action.
Watch out for the Mind Projection Fallacy; the fact that the relative magnitudes of consciously considered numbers don't motivate human beings accordingly has little to do with how an AI could be programmed.
I mean, "if X>2Y then do Z" is a really easy sort of rule to program.
The point isn't whether robots (or people) could be affected by cardinal magnitudes. The point is that only the valuation which causes action in the subjective present (Bergsonian present) actually motivates people. How they come to have that value might be predictable by direct cardinal ratios (indeed, if you're a mental determinist and materialist this is true of humans). The point is that this psychological or physiological fact is the origin of a particular motivation. Teleological entities, however, only feel and act right now, and only on their most highly ranked values - however those values came to be most highly ranked. And there is no assessable 'ratio' of satisfaction gained or loss, only expectations of better or worse.
In response to
comment
by
on
The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Truth About Morality and What To Do About It
it's so nonsensical and grinding it may be as possible (and more beneficial) to simply stop pretending magical rules and standards need apply.
I cannot understand what you are trying to say here. Perhaps try expanding your point to more than one sentence? What do you mean by "grinding"?
In response to
comment
by
on
The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Truth About Morality and What To Do About It
Sorry for the delay, I just checked this: I think actual morality tends to systematically bias behaviour and ideas about 'social' life which are contrary to fact and create all sorts of personal and interpersonal problems. I also think it gives far too strong a 'presumption' towards the benevolence of do-gooders, the sanity of 'sticking to your guns, come what may' and the wisdom of the popular.
There is a more general problem with cognitive dissonance and idea-consistency, due to the literal nonsensicality of most moral claims and sentiments. I also see that the alleged 'gains' from morality are frequently self-inflated, if not false to begin with; while the alternative - intellectual consistency and a recognition of purposeful action as aimed at subjective satisfaction - is vastly underrated, even by people of a 'libertarian' bent.
In response to
The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Truth About Morality and What To Do About It
As a moral nihilist and/or egoist I tend to agree with the general sentiment of this article, though I would not take the tack of saying morality needs to be reformed - it's so nonsensical and grinding it may be as possible (and more beneficial) to simply stop pretending magical rules and standards need apply.
In response to
Post Your Utility Function
"Utility functions are really bad match for human preferences, and one of the major premises we accept is wrong." Given the sheer messiness and mechanical influence involved in human brains, it's not even clear we have real 'values' which could be examined on a utility function, rather than simple dominant-interestedness that happens for largely unconscious and semi-arbitrary reasons.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I'm sorry, but that's just a wierd question. Why wouldn't women want to play status games?
Most of those things were originally developed as seduction aids and do double duty, but they have been adopted as status aids and probably are more important in that role. (Signaling only to men, women can get away with much less work - compare porn.)
In their original pure seduction aid role, some stuff - lipstick and perfume for example - used to be extremely disreputable.
Also some obvious fashion fetishes are void of signal to males - handbags are an example.
It seems to me a lot of this has to be female-female signaling as proposed. Most men do not seem to care what I'm wearing, and would probably prefer it was 'nothing'. I have NEVER had a guy bring up something I'm wearing unless it was clearly being used as an opening for chatting me up.