= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.
Ayn Rand
In response to
Rationality Quotes March 2012
Making the (flawed) assumption that in a disagreement, they cannot both be wrong.
That doesn't seem to make sense. What are the odds they would have invented the word "chessmate" if the computer never used it?
It's a fictional example and it's not that uncommon in fiction to have terminology that's almost, but not entirely like the equivalent in the real world. I find that kind of thing amusing, so I thought the author might have a similar sense of humour, so it could be intentional. But I admit that Occam's razor supports the theory that it's simply a mistake.
In response to
A few analogies to illustrate key rationality points
So they learned the rules of chess, movement of the pieces, what "chess" and "chessmate" is
I think you mean "check" and "checkmate".
I assumed that was intentional, as the players would not know the terminology of chess if they had to deduce the rules.
In response to
comment
by
on
Recent popular books on human irrationality to recommend to your friends
Sutherland's book is good but older.
In response to
comment
by
on
Recent popular books on human irrationality to recommend to your friends
Sorry, I somehow missed the "recent" in the title.
I recently read Stuart Sutherland's Irrationality, which also explains a lot of the more common biases and errors in reasoning. Decent book, but -again- probably not a lot of new ideas for less wrongers.
In a world where people make decisions according to this principle, one has the incentive to self-modify into a utility monster who feels enormous suffering at any actions of other people one dislikes for whatever reason.
The incentive is weaker than you seem to suggest. Surely, I gain nothing tangible by inducing people to tiptoe carefully around my minefield. Only a feeling of power, or perhaps some satisfaction at having caused inconvenience to my enemies. So, what is the more fruitful maxim to follow so as to discourage this kind of thing?
- Don't feed the utility monster.
or
- Poke the utility monster with a stick until it desensitizes.
Somehow I have to think that poking is a form of capitulation to the manipulation - it is voluntary participation in a manufactured drama.
The incentive is weaker than you seem to suggest. Surely, I gain nothing tangible by inducing people to tiptoe carefully around my minefield.
Yes, you do. If everything unpleasant to you causes you a huge amount of suffering instead of, say, mild annoyance, other people (utilitarians) will abstain from doing things that are unpleasant to you as the negative utility to you outweighs the positive utility to them.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
It's a bit esoteric for many people, but nobody knows whether or not the LHC will find the Higgs boson...
I don't think that's a good question. You're right that, technically, nobody knows, but my impression is that many physicists would be comfortable assigning p > 0.9 that it will.