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

Comment author: adsenanim 18 March 2011 08:33:17AM 0 points [-]

The major drawback of a PUA community is that it acts as an isolated system; or in harsh terms, like inbreeding.

What you are obfuscating is the idea of a very complex history that doesn't relate to the argument you are presenting, much like using the two slit experiment to justify existentialism.

In response to Cached Selves
Comment author: adsenanim 18 March 2011 06:19:22AM -1 points [-]

One thing I would point out is that the arguments presented here are a considerable effort into the examination of one’s own personal psyche, and that of the common psyche.

While it can be a definite benefit to examine this topic, I advise caution of moderation in the attempt.

I admire the authors own example in doing the equivalent: "I’m not recommending these, just putting them out there for consideration"

My main point of argument is that examination need not be experimentation, we can form hypothesis for consideration and not be burdened with the responsibility of an incorrect interaction.

I find the examples presented in this argument unnecessary (Freedman) if the examiner is capable of limited self examination.

In consideration of the main argument I would say that in my own experience it is possible to advise some of their own awareness without adhering to the presented guideline, that others may be of a nature above the need for any guideline, and, others yet may find completion in never knowing the presented guideline.

In response to comment by komponisto on Being a teacher
Comment author: Emile 15 March 2011 07:12:37AM 1 point [-]

Ah, that makes sense, though I can't think of that many constructions where that rule works: "Un curieux animal" and "un animal curieux" mean different things ("a curious-looking animal" and "an animal that seems to feel curious"), and I think that's a one-off rule more than an instance of a general rule.

I suspect some adjectives "naturally" go in front of the noun (those Alicorn listed), but you can put them behind it for extra emphasis; the rest always go behind. With a lot of idiomatic exceptions like "curieux" which means something different depending on whether it's before or after the noun.

In response to comment by Emile on Being a teacher
Comment author: adsenanim 15 March 2011 07:40:20AM *  0 points [-]

Don't forget that event-related idioms can skew meaning as well...

Comment author: adsenanim 15 March 2011 07:07:02AM -1 points [-]

The use of this poem contributes quite a bit to the argument as it is a factual event and a future possible event.

It is a positive action to do something that will be beneficial within ones own lifetime, and also to repeat something that has been done in the past that is a current benefit.

Planting trees has the benefit of carbon sequestration and the added benefit of providing growth of known positive environmental factors such as increased biodiversity.

The negative aspect of this post is that the wording is similar to religious propaganda such as used by World Vision.

Comment author: adsenanim 01 November 2010 05:33:34AM -2 points [-]

Is this a local game, or are you going to add a way to let people in other locations contribute?

If your only proponents are local than you are not creating a global idea...

Comment author: adsenanim 30 October 2010 06:58:01AM -2 points [-]

I know this is a silly question, but do you know the figures you are presenting may be equated to the forces produced by the action of wind on a sail?

Your romantic dinner is a distance away, and I hope you are not following Achilles after the Tortoise.

Comment author: scadza 24 October 2010 08:37:31AM 1 point [-]

Please have a look at this. Corax. Its is quite similar to the game that you have mentioned.
http://lumiere.ens.fr/~alphapsy/blog/?2006/10/11/84-coraxed

Comment author: adsenanim 25 October 2010 05:15:41AM -1 points [-]

I would take the basic premise to be that we are trying the "guilty party" with the idea of "reasonable doubt".

I'm ok with "Agatha Christy" to the limit of fictional argument, but one would have to give a stronger argument than the "Corax" to find a plausible definition to a physical phenomena. After all, the whole point is to understand.

Comment author: Meni_Rosenfeld 18 October 2010 07:30:32PM 0 points [-]

Sorry, I'm not sure I know how to answer that.

Comment author: adsenanim 22 October 2010 01:08:32AM -2 points [-]

The more complex a system becomes, the easier it is to destabilize it.

Is this a conditional argument?

Comment author: Meni_Rosenfeld 18 October 2010 07:59:15AM 1 point [-]

Now that I've looked it up, I don't think it really has the same intuitions behind it as mixed strategy NE. But it does have an interesting connection with swings. If you try to push a heavy pendulum one way, you won't get very far. Trying the other way you'll also be out of luck. But if you push and pull alternately at the right frequency, you will obtain an impressive amplitude and height. Maybe it is because I've had firsthand experience with this that I don't find Parrondo's paradox all that puzzling.

Comment author: adsenanim 18 October 2010 09:12:42AM 1 point [-]

From what you are saying, with the mixed strategy NE, I get that possible moves increase in relation to the complexity of the equilibrium, so that it becomes increasingly likely that any possible action could have an added emphasis that would cause a specific outcome as the equilibrium increases in complexity.

e.g.

What you are describing with the pendulum motion, the pendulum does not require additional effort in both directions to increase, only one direction, and the effort need be only the smallest (or smaller in addition) in relation to the period, and direction. An action to large in the same direction, or against the direction will destabilize it.

Isn't it true that the more precise the equilibrium, the less effort is required to destabilize it?

I think that the main difference between our arguments is that while you are talking of simultaneous action, I am talking of sequential action...

Was Carl Segan an Agnostic Prophet?

-23 adsenanim 18 October 2010 06:20AM

I ask that those who want to participate follow these rules:

Syllogistic representations are preferred.

Anecdotes are welcome, but please limit yourself.

Platitudes are self recriminatory.

Haiku are considered poetry.

Math, while appropriate, may cause confusion.

If the argument that you represent is not listed above please try to limit your response for clarity.

Those who wish to argue that "Agnostic" and "Prophet" are incongruent, please understand that "Prophet" is understood to mean "any person that can observe phenomena over time and hazards a guess to what will happen next".

 

 

View more: Next