Comment author: NancyLebovitz 13 April 2016 05:17:32PM -1 points [-]

Do you mean the pronouns used to address your character are automatically edited to be what you want?

It would be interesting if people could put up lists of the pronouns they prefer, and that would give them a tool for roughly judging how much trouble people are willing to go to to appear to be on their side.

Are there any games which encourage a you/thou distinction?

Comment author: bbleeker 14 April 2016 10:37:17AM 1 point [-]

Are there any games which encourage a you/thou distinction?

I hope there are not, people would use the wrong cases and verb forms all the time.

In response to Positivity Thread :)
Comment author: username2 09 April 2016 11:13:57AM 2 points [-]

What are your favorite puns?

Comment author: bbleeker 11 April 2016 12:51:52PM 5 points [-]

He asked her to conjugate, but she declined.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 10 April 2016 12:57:54PM *  2 points [-]

It turns out that a lot of color blind people can see their difficult colors a little bit, and technological aid helps.

http://wearecolorblind.com/article/oxy-iso-glasses-review/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-eyewear-could-help-people-with-red-green-color-blindness/

They don't seem to help (most?) people as much of the more enthusiastic early reviews said, but aren't totally useless, either.

Comment author: bbleeker 11 April 2016 10:52:58AM 2 points [-]

So it helps them to be less wrong, as it were.

Rationality Quotes April 2016

1 bbleeker 06 April 2016 07:01AM

Another month, another rationality quotes thread. The rules are:

  • Provide sufficient information (URL, title, date, page number, etc.) to enable a reader to find the place where you read the quote, or its original source if available. Do not quote with only a name.
  • Post all quotes separately, so that they can be upvoted or downvoted separately. (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments. If strongly ordered, then go ahead and post them together.)
  • Do not quote yourself.
  • Do not quote from Less Wrong itself, HPMoR, Eliezer Yudkowsky, or Robin Hanson. If you'd like to revive an old quote from one of those sources, please do so here.
  • No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.
Comment author: SquirrelInHell 28 March 2016 04:09:58AM *  2 points [-]

so it is still possible to run out of the resources

Yes, but I would rather see this as a sign that you hit a wall with your motivation-creating skill, than a limitation on how much motivation you can have or how quickly you can achieve it. There seems to be plenty of evidence for people having success spirals that are very quick and powerful.

Also, the correct meta-strategy when you have little motivation seems to be to direct as much of it as you can towards exploring ways to get more motivation. I expect most people are not strategic about their motivation, so I point it out whenever I can.

Comment author: bbleeker 28 March 2016 07:03:20AM 1 point [-]

I would love to know more about how to create motivation!

Comment author: Huluk 26 March 2016 12:55:37AM *  26 points [-]

[Survey Taken Thread]

By ancient tradition, if you take the survey you may comment saying you have done so here, and people will upvote you and you will get karma.

Let's make these comments a reply to this post. That way we continue the tradition, but keep the discussion a bit cleaner.

Comment author: bbleeker 26 March 2016 12:15:56PM 39 points [-]

I have taken the survey. I left a lot of questions blank though, because I really have no opinion about many of them.

Comment author: Brillyant 16 March 2016 03:25:52AM *  0 points [-]

It makes a lot of sense that the nature of questions regarding the "beginning" of the universe is nonsensical and anthropocentric, but it still feels like a cheap response that misses the crux of the issue. It feels like "science will fill in that gap eventually" and we ought to trust that will be so.

Matter exists. And there are physical laws in the universe that exist. I accept, despite my lack of imagination and fancy scientific book learning, that this is basically enough to deterministically allow intelligent live beings like you and I to be corresponding via our internet-ed magical picture boxes. Given enough time, just gravity and matter gets us to here—to all the apparent complexity of the universe. I buy that.

But whether the universe is eternal, or time is circular, or we came from another universe, or we are in a simulation, or whatever other strange non-intuitive thing may be true in regard to the ultimate origins of everything, there is still this pesky fact that we are here. And everything else is here. There is existence where it certainly seems there just as easily could be non-existence.

Again, I really do recognize the silly anthropocentric nature of questions about matters like these. I think you are ultimately right that the questions are non-sensical.

But, to my original question, it seems a simple agnostic-ish deism is a fairly reasonable position given the infantile state of our current understanding of ultimate origins. I mean, if you're correct, we don't even know that we are asking questions that make sense about how things exist...then how can we rule out something like a powerful, intelligent creative entity (that has nothing to with any revealed religion)?

I'm not asking rhetorically. How do you rule it out?

Comment author: bbleeker 16 March 2016 11:24:28AM 0 points [-]

It makes a lot of sense that the nature of questions regarding the "beginning" of the universe is nonsensical and anthropocentric, but it still feels like a cheap response that misses the crux of the issue. It feels like "science will fill in that gap eventually" and we ought to trust that will be so.

I think that's one question that science probably won't be able to answer. But that's no reason to just make something up! Maybe we can't rule out a 'powerful, intelligent creative entity' – but why would you even think of that? And of course it just shifts the question to the next level, because where would that entity come from?

Comment author: bbleeker 10 March 2016 12:46:34PM 1 point [-]

I think it probably matters a lot what people are conforming about. If it's about perception (which line is the same, which color is different) and several people all say the same thing that's different from what I thought I saw, I can see myself starting to doubt my perception. If it's about memory (what is the capital of Rumania?) I'd start thinking I must have misremembered. But if 4 people all said that 2+2=5, I'd realise the experiment wasn't about what they said it was.

Comment author: username2 07 March 2016 10:48:19PM 2 points [-]

I don't know if this is the right place to ask, but... Less Wrongers, do you believe in falling in love after 20-25? For me it seems that I am no longer able to feel anything as intensely as I was able to feel when I was 18. I don't know what happened. I am not saying that people over 25 don't love, just that it is no longer the same thing. Maybe I'm just generalizing from one example, but although I am still young, I feel like I've lost something significant. Can you relate to any of that?

Comment author: bbleeker 08 March 2016 02:57:26PM 2 points [-]

My husband and I fell in love when I was 40 and he was 36. I agree with Viliam: the obsession was definitely weaker, and the idea that the other will make life perfect forever was missing. But that's a good thing, IMO.

Comment author: Houshalter 02 March 2016 06:47:54PM 1 point [-]

An interesting article I found a long time ago. Scroll down to the tables. I've found these tables extremely interesting. Way better than the descriptions of what the different personality traits are supposed to mean.

E.g. Openness seems to be your measure of liberal vs conservative/ red tribe vs blue tribe stuff.

Conscientiousness measures focus/akrasia/ADHD.

Introversion is obvious, but what it correlates to is interesting. Extroverts are interest in parties, but introversion correlates very strongly with "nerd" culture stuff.

Agreeableness is atheism vs religion. Might be more generally having contrarian opinions on things, I'm not certain.

Neuroticism is... well I don't really know what's going on there.

Comment author: bbleeker 03 March 2016 01:25:17PM 0 points [-]

Looks like the more you like nature/the outdoors, the less neurotic you are.

View more: Prev | Next