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

Comment author: denis_bider 20 November 2007 09:25:14PM 11 points [-]

dearieme: "Given that WWII showed that race could be dynamite, it's surely astonishing that so many rich countries have permitted mass immigration by people who are not only of different race, but often of different religion. Even more astonishing that they've allowed some groups to keep immigrating even after the early arrivers from those groups have proved to be failures, economically or socially. Did anyone predict that 60 years ago?"

I thought that the excessive tolerances and the aversion to distinguish groups of people based on factual differences are traits that developed as a result of oversensitization from the events of WWII. Hitler's people engaged in cruel and unjust discrimination, so all discrimination is now cruel and unjust. Hitler's people (and others before them) engaged in cruel and gruesome eugenics experiments, so all eugenics are cruel and gruesome.

If Hitler did cruel experiments using pasta, pasta would now be known to be bad for everyone.

Comment author: brainoil 02 April 2014 01:13:17AM *  0 points [-]

Jim Crowe laws were there up until 1965, two decades after the war. If there really was such an over-sensitization, this wouldn't be the case. Clearly, they weren't sensitized enough. You'd have a hard time linking this to WWII.

What are the examples you can give of such excessive tolerances and aversion to distinguish groups of people based on factual differences without resorting to generalizing, and instead judging each individual separately? In my opinion, it's very hard to be over tolerant. It's clear as day that George Zimmerman wouldn't have shot that kid dead if he was white. Even if it is true that black men have a predisposition to violence, that doesn't mean the kid deserved the bias against him.

I think it is this thought that drives the anti-discrimination political movement. It's the idea that people are more than members of their races. More than the WWII, it's just how the rise of individuality in the Western world would go forward. This also explains why Russia is still rampantly discriminating against all sorts of people, be it women, or gays, or minorities. They were involved in the WWII too, but clearly it hasn't caused any over-sensitization.

Other than that, there's the more obvious fact that among the people who are against Affirmative Action, Immigration, Disparate Impact Doctrine etc. are people like Pat Buchanan, who clearly doesn't have the best interests of protected groups in his heart. So you can't blame people for trying to be excessively tolerant so that they can counter the people who are excessively intolerant.

Comment author: brainoil 01 April 2014 03:28:58PM -1 points [-]

So there's that arrow that connects the 60s counterculture to distrust of authority. I'm reminded of something David Brin said about distrust of authority. Every generation thinks it invented it.

Anyway, I think the 60s counterculture had more to do with rejection of authority than distrust of authority. They totally trusted Eugene McCarthy, didn't they?

Comment author: elharo 11 March 2014 11:48:18PM 14 points [-]

Not only

If someone doesn’t believe in God, they’re unlikely to spend their career studying arcane arguments for and against God’s existence. So most people who specialize in this topic are theists, but nearly all of them were theists before they knew the arguments.

but also

If someone doesn’t believe in UFAI , they’re unlikely to spend their career studying arcane arguments about AGI impact. So most people who specialize in this topic are UFAI believers, but nearly all of them were UFAI believers before they knew the arguments.

Thus I do not think you should rule out the opinions of the large community of AI experts who do not specialize in AGI impact.

Comment author: brainoil 31 March 2014 02:52:28AM 1 point [-]

This is a false analogy. You can be a believer in God when you're five years old and haven't read any relevant arguments due to childhood indoctrination that happens in every home. You might even believe in income redistribution when you're five years old if your parents tell you that it's the right thing to do. I'm pretty sure nobody teaches their children about UFAI that way. You'd have to know the arguments for or against UFAI to even know what that means.

Comment author: brainoil 04 February 2014 12:32:52AM 26 points [-]

"Nothing exists in contradiction to nature, only in contradiction to what we know of it." - Dana Scully, The X-Files

Comment author: brainoil 17 January 2014 10:51:49AM -2 points [-]
Comment author: thomblake 13 March 2009 08:11:30PM 3 points [-]

But you don't reject the hypothesis that "Barack Obama is a wooly mammoth" because it's absurd - nobody has seriously presented it. If someone had a reason to seriously present it, then I'd not dismiss it out of hand - if only because I was interested enough to hear it in the first place, so would want to see if the speaker was making a clever joke, or perhaps needed immediate medical care. As EY might say, noticing a hypothesis is unlikely enough in the first place that you should probably pay some attention to it, if the speaker was one of the people you listen to. cf. Einstein's Arrogance

Comment author: brainoil 05 January 2014 10:43:09PM *  0 points [-]

David Icke thinks Barack Obama and many other prominent politicians are reptiles and that there's a reptilian conspiracy going on. He has written many books about this, and seems to take all of that pretty seriously. Should I be reading his books, instead of something that is more likely to be true?

Comment author: ialdabaoth 05 January 2014 06:15:34AM *  4 points [-]

Actual response I got as a child in Sunday school, when I pointed out this and various other weirdnesses:

"God is more powerful than human logic. Just because something seems like a contradiction to you, doesn't mean it's a contradiction if God does it."

Comment author: brainoil 05 January 2014 12:15:54PM -1 points [-]

Didn't think about that. But this actually makes a lot of sense. This is the only way you can believe in those things. You completely ignore reason and take it all on faith.

Comment author: Yvain 13 March 2009 02:25:44AM 31 points [-]

Many (most? all?) Christians believe the snake was really Satan, who took the form of a snake to trick Eve. Treating it as an ordinary snake that happened to be able to talk is probably as gross a misrepresentation as the lady's misrepresentation of evolution.

Comment author: brainoil 05 January 2014 06:03:40AM *  0 points [-]

I don't know what actual Christians believe, but how could this be when god cursed that the snake would have to crawl on its belly for the rest of its days ("on your belly you shall go"), and yet later in the New Testament Satan walks with Jesus on earth to tempt him to idolatry with the offer of the kingdoms?

Besides, if it's Satan, why punish snakes instead?

I haven't talked about this with an actual Christian, but it seems to me that an erudite Christian won't hold this view that the snake was Satan, especially when you can get rid of the contradiction by saying the snake was not Satan.

Comment author: brainoil 11 October 2013 07:43:10AM 1 point [-]

I'm not American, so I could be wrong about this. But at first glance it seems to me that Republicans have to run two vastly different campaigns, one in the primaries and the other in the general election, while Democrats could run pretty much the same campaign in the primaries as well as the general election. It seems to me that people like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz would have to get called flip-flops if they were to run for presidency in 2016 while Hillary Clinton would be able to run just one campaign.

Am I wrong, or is the Democratic party just larger than the Republican party and therefore more mainstream?

Comment author: Manfred 05 September 2013 09:25:25PM 11 points [-]

Would be nice if this were true.

Comment author: brainoil 06 September 2013 08:10:56AM *  2 points [-]

It's probably true for academic film theory. I mean how hard could it really be?

View more: Next