Comment author: DanArmak 30 November 2009 07:13:39PM 2 points [-]

And maybe some pilots eject when they could try harder to save the plane instead. Has anyone checked which is correct?

Comment author: akshatrathi 30 November 2009 07:32:49PM 0 points [-]

Does a fighter plane have a black box, like the one that is there in passenger planes?

In response to Action vs. inaction
Comment author: akshatrathi 30 November 2009 06:46:05PM *  2 points [-]

Yet in health, we see action as inherently dangerous; while in economics, we see inaction as inherently dangerous. Why?

That is a very good point, I must appreciate that you noticed it. I would say that one of the reasons that happens is because people resist change. In health, any action would mean there could be something wrong that can happen. Thus, it is made a mandate that every possible wrong be checked before such an action takes place. Hence, the inherent danger in action.

Where as in case of economics, actions are usually taken to stop a change from happening (Stimulus package, bailing out car companies, president goes shopping, etc.). Thus, inaction would be accepting change which people always oppose. Hence, the inherent danger in inaction.

Comment author: akshatrathi 30 November 2009 04:51:13PM 5 points [-]

I believe that scientists can change fields easily and sometimes make bigger impact in the new fields they enter. I think it’s because people who move do not look at the same problem from the traditional point-of-view. This enables us to come up with unique solutions. We are not trapped by dogma and if we are bold we can rise quickly.

-- Aubrey de Grey

Comment author: righteousreason 30 November 2009 02:11:34AM 2 points [-]

I don't see how this reveals his motive at all. He could easily be a person motivated to make the best contributions to science as he can, for entirely altruistic reasons. His reasoning was that he could make better contributions elsewhere, and it's entirely plausible for him to have left the field for ultimately altruistic, purely non-selfish reasons.

And what is it about selfishness exactly that is so bad?

Comment author: akshatrathi 30 November 2009 04:48:00PM 1 point [-]

He may have, for his own reasons, not been happy with the ease with which he achieved something great. His selfishness at this point is not for the fact that he may still be able to contribute to the field and yet he chooses not to but for the fact that he will be happier if he had to work harder on something before achieving greatness. That is his value system. I think his choice is justifiable.

Comment author: akshatrathi 30 November 2009 04:43:08PM *  2 points [-]

The second advantage claimed for naturalism is that it is equivalent to rationality, because it assumes a model of reality in which all events are in principle accessible to scientific investigation.

-- Phillip E. Johnson

Comment author: akshatrathi 30 November 2009 11:46:54AM *  3 points [-]

So few of us really think. What we do is rearrange our prejudices.

-- George Vincent

Comment author: akshatrathi 30 November 2009 11:45:15AM 1 point [-]

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift, the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.

-- Albert Einstein

Comment author: akshatrathi 30 November 2009 01:55:11AM -5 points [-]

We live in the matrix and Eliezer Yudkowsky is the architect.

Comment author: Doug_S.2 25 February 2007 06:19:59AM 9 points [-]

"Never give up" is bad advice?

Probability of success if you continue: small. Probability of success if you give up: zero.

Small is better than zero, am I right?

On the other hand, this analysis only matters if the cost of failure is no worse than the cost of giving up. The "rational" thing to do would be to give up if and only if (probability of success * utility of success) + (probability of failure * utility of failure) < (utility of giving up).

There are a lot of things that one can achieve through sheer persistence, but there are others that, well, you can't do, period. The trick is to be able to tell the difference. I suspect that I'm not going to be a star athlete no matter how much I practice, but I just might qualify for the Pro Tour some day.

Comment author: akshatrathi 30 November 2009 12:12:21AM 4 points [-]

The point of this post was to show that persisting at something while being irrational can only cause harm. Of course, "Never give up" is not bad advice, but Eliezer's advice is be rational and accept defeat when you need to.

Comment author: akshatrathi 29 November 2009 11:49:44PM 2 points [-]

I must stress here the point that I appreciate clarity, order, meaning, structure, rationality: they are necessary to whatever provisional stability we have, and they can be the agents of gradual and successful change.

-- A. R. Ammons

View more: Prev | Next