Comment author: potato 22 November 2011 09:24:25AM 0 points [-]

Nitpick: something does need to be certain to be true, but it only needs to have a high probability to to be rationally strongly believed.

Comment author: anonymous259 22 November 2011 09:40:02AM 1 point [-]

The person you are replying to is unfortunately no longer with us. :-(

Comment author: CuSithBell 16 November 2011 08:05:06AM 3 points [-]

I strongly urge you to reconsider this entire argument. I'm really worried about the sorts of reactions and arguments flying in this thread / topic. I don't think MixedNuts' post was based on cynical disingenuous argumentation, but rather an honest disagreement with you, a differing view of reality, as in the parable of the blind men and the elephant. If you don't know "what on earth [your interlocutor is] talking about", this should make you less sure of your footing.

The umbrella of PUA encompasses harmless advice that seems to have helped a lot of people, as well as vicious misanthropy. Some techniques focus on improving oneself, others on harming others. There are parts of PUA that are problematic wrt consent, and that could help to coerce sex from others. There are (different) parts that should be analyzed here.

I'm not attacking you. I'm asking you to be careful. There are vivid warning signs in an alarming proportion of posts on this topic. I do not trust everyone to judge the effects of their actions on others, especially when they could benefit from hiding from themselves the harm they could do. More to the point, in such situations, we should not trust ourselves.

Comment author: anonymous259 16 November 2011 10:19:23AM *  3 points [-]

If you don't know "what on earth [your interlocutor is] talking about", this should make you less sure of your footing.

I'm pretty sure the question was rhetorical.

I do not trust everyone to judge the effects of their actions on others,

Unfortunately, the mere fact that you are raising this concern specifically in this context communicates a certain stance on the underlying issue(s), or, more bluntly, alignment with a certain faction in this particular power-struggle.

...and I'm probably communicating the opposite alignment by replying in this manner. So it goes.

Comment author: CuSithBell 16 November 2011 07:21:01AM -4 points [-]

If you are going to rape people then you don't need PUA. It'd be kind of redundant.

Could you define rape, please?

Comment author: anonymous259 16 November 2011 07:35:38AM 2 points [-]

Coercing sexual intercourse via physical violence or the threat thereof.

Comment author: wedrifid 11 November 2011 03:25:44PM 7 points [-]

You make a very good point here. But you see, women don't find men who try to be nice to them attractive. They call it "clingy", "creepy" behavior. Human male-female interaction is actually a signalling game, where the man being nice simply sends a signal of weakness. Women are genetically programmed to only let alpha sperm in, and the alpha is not a character who goes around being nice to strangers.

Oversimplified to the extent that it is basically not true.

Comment author: anonymous259 11 November 2011 09:51:37PM 1 point [-]

But you see, women don't find men who try to be nice to them attractive...Women are genetically programmed to only let alpha sperm in

Oversimplified to the extent that it is basically not true.

And yet I would bet that it is still closer to true than I approve of. In particular, closer to true than the mental model used by the naive "nice guy"/"beta".

Comment author: anonymous259 22 June 2011 12:34:45PM *  7 points [-]

Bad: There is no longer any visible difference between promoted and non-promoted posts (all circles are green).

Extremely Bad: It is no longer possible to delete comments, only "retract" them (with usernames remaining displayed).

Comment author: anonymous259 22 June 2011 12:29:55PM 0 points [-]

This is a test.

Comment author: [deleted] 05 May 2011 08:01:54PM *  2 points [-]

Yeah, I figured someone would call me out on the false dilemma. Of course if there were other major benefits to the discussion, it could still be worth having. But my disagreement with you is as follows: 1) I think the increase in probability of suicides is non-tiny, 2) I don’t value “not having taboos” particularly highly, 3) I think there are better ways to express regret than by saying, essentially, “So did he do the right thing or what?”

If you somehow found out that someone had decided to kill themselves because of this thread, how confident would you be that they made the right decision? Would you feel glad that you had helped them think it through rationally? Or would you say “Oh shit”?

Edit: Hey guys, I have a bad habit of snarking people into hardening their positions. Sorry for being kind of a jerk here.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Ethics and rationality of suicide
Comment author: anonymous259 06 May 2011 08:36:23PM *  2 points [-]

1) I think the increase in probability of suicides is non-tiny

What would be the mechanism linking this post to future suicides? (See also below.)

2) I don’t value “not having taboos” particularly highly

That would certainly help to explain your reaction. I, however, value it very highly indeed, and think that taboos are incompatible with rationality and "enlightenment" values (such as freedom of speech) more generally. (There could be exceptions, but they must always be considered, and never knee-jerk or uncritically inherited from general society.)

3) I think there are better ways to express regret than by saying, essentially, “So did he do the right thing or what?”

You have misunderstood the post. It does not ask whether Chris did the right thing. It invites readers to consider the rationality of suicide in general. It also invites them to critically examine society's attitude (of which you evidently happen to be an exponent). It does so as a tribute to Chris: this is a discussion that I think he would have wanted to see happen, and I feel he deserves to have his fellow aspiring rationalists pay some attention to this issue before he is forgotten.

If you somehow found out that someone had decided to kill themselves because of this thread, how confident would you be that they made the right decision?

So far as I am aware, my post does not contain any argument in favor of any particular person committing suicide. It is therefore difficult to imagine that anyone could rationally decide to kill themselves "because of" it. And I do not accept the Orwellian idea that we can (or should) prevent irrational suicides by avoiding discussion of the issue. Even if the effect were non-negligible (which I don't particularly believe), I would not consider it worth the censorship cost.

In short, while I may very well say "Oh shit" in response to such a suicide, the significance of that exclamation would not be any different than if the person had committed suicide in response to any other LW post I had written (on any other topic).

Comment author: [deleted] 04 May 2011 07:22:18PM 0 points [-]

I don't think your post was irresponsible, but it does frighten me. Your reaction to the suicide -- to try to put yourself in the man's shoes, to understand the mindset and grievances of a person who might make such a decision, and to withhold the judgement that his decision was a mistake -- is clearly borne of kind and humane impulses. But I suspect that you're depressed yourself, and that your depression has hijacked and perverted those impulses.

Many commenters here have reacted to the suicide not with "how must he have felt" but with "how can we prevent more such things from happening?" It seems you think this reveals a lack of empathy or respect, and that someone who understood better what it's like to "not always be enthusiastic about their own existence" would approach the issue differently -- in the way you're approaching it. I wonder if it's occurred to you, and I hope that you'll consider it, that your understanding of what depression is like might actually be poorer than those making the banal and maudlin point that this was a tragedy and a mistake, precisely because depression can rob you of perspective.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Ethics and rationality of suicide
Comment author: anonymous259 05 May 2011 03:54:36PM 8 points [-]

But I suspect that you're depressed yourself

I am not, in fact, currently depressed, although I have been in the past. But I (in my non-depressed state) respect the feelings, wishes, and preferences of my depressed self, just like those of someone else like Chris.

Many commenters here have reacted to the suicide not with "how must he have felt" but with "how can we prevent more such things from happening?" It seems you think this reveals a lack of empathy or respect

I haven't said much of anything in response to most comments here; you seem to be extrapolating from things I said in the post. But there I was criticizing specific bad arguments, ones that are encountered in the general culture and not necessarily here ; the remark about lack of empathy was in specific reference to the argument from grief of friends and relatives.

the banal and maudlin point that this was a tragedy and a mistake

That it was a tragedy is certain; unfortunately, that doesn't automatically imply that it was a mistake.

However, it may very well have been a mistake in Chris's case. I'm not sure he realized how close he was (a few keystrokes by him or someone else, like me) to the kind of friendship he needed.

But it's that kind of miscalculation that would make it a mistake, and not the mere fact that other people are sad, or that "we must prevent suicide" is a widespread moral-sounding meme.

I myself am very sad about this, and become more so the more I read his writings. I hope he is not forgotten.

Comment author: AnnaSalamon 04 May 2011 06:48:50AM *  11 points [-]

Yikes. This post strikes me as harmful and irresponsible. Less Wrong is less of a community than I'd like -- less there for its members, less mindful of what effects each person has on the others and on the rest of the community.

I agree, actually, that all subjects are fitting subjects for rationality. But if you’re going to talk with someone who is suicidal and unstable about the detailed pros and cons of killing themselves, you risk having seriously bad consequences. Saying “but free speech is good, and thinking through all subjects is good” just isn’t enough of an answer to that. Talking about some subjects brings responsibilities -- responsibilities for thinking carefully through who you might harm, and how you can support them during the discussion. Offering help.

LW has a number of seriously depressed people.

Since this thread is already up -- let's make an effort now to reach out to anyone who needs reaching out to, to increase the odds that depressed LW readers have social support. That is: if you know a LW-er online or in person who is depressed, make contact with them. If you're a good listener with a couple of free hours in your life, echo Alicorn's offer of help. If you have a bit of spare money and a good CBT book to recommend, offer to mail it to someone who'd read it. If you have useful well-being tips and can write, consider making a front-level post (on happiness tips or CBT or the like, not on topics that might prime suicide).

Comment author: anonymous259 04 May 2011 01:33:24PM 6 points [-]

I really don't understand your objection to this post specifically. I tried to craft it in the most sensitive way possible, it wasn't directly addressed to suicidal people themselves, and you agree that all subjects are fitting subjects for rationality. Furthermore, many commenters (including yourself) have in fact used it as an opportunity to reach out to those in the community suffering from depression.

What aspects of this post are so harmful that you think they outweigh the benefits, and how could it have been better written so as to allow the topic to be discussed while minimizing harm?

In response to comment by [deleted] on Ethics and rationality of suicide
Comment author: [deleted] 03 May 2011 05:25:21PM 13 points [-]

I remember in Influence how there was a whole chapter about increases in suicides after highly-publicized suicides, and even increases in apparent accidental deaths after highly-publicized accidental deaths. I'm surprised no one else has brought it up. Has this been debunked in some way, or is this thread a really terrible idea?

In response to comment by [deleted] on Ethics and rationality of suicide
Comment author: anonymous259 04 May 2011 02:57:18AM *  8 points [-]

Has this been debunked in some way, or is this thread a really terrible idea?

Those are not the only two alternatives.

If minimizing the number of suicides were the only consideration, then you might have a (weak) argument that this post is a bad idea. (But note that gimpf's link specifically discussed television coverage; more generally, the "copycat effect" is generally considered to be a result of sensationalizing or glorifying suicide, not merely discussing it.) However, there are other, competing, values involved, such as:

  • not having taboos
  • finding out in what circumstances suicide is and isn't rational
  • finding out to what extent our society's approach to combatting suicide is ethical
  • acknowledging the death of a LW user ("one of our own"), and expressing sadness at the loss of a valuable member of the human species

and in my judgement these outweigh whatever tiny increase in the probability of some future suicide you're worried may result from this post. Not to mention the possibility that some people reading this post and the comments here might be less likely to commit suicide than they otherwise would have been. (Even if a significant copycat effect applies to this kind of discussion [unlikely], the LW readership is an atypical population, more likely to be moved by argument, and more likely to be regretful of Chris's death in particular.)

View more: Prev | Next