= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I'm not optimizing my clothing for the vast majority of people, and neither should most lesswrongers.
For whom should we be optimizing our clothing for, then?
This seems empirically false.
It almost certainly is, but does that matter? It is a slogan for any time when the powers that be are diminished by the truth.
I think this depends very much on your social circle and social goals. Wearing clothing with slogans on it is a high variance strategy: high attractiveness to a few people, low or even negative attractiveness to others. Wearing slogan-less clothing is more low variance; probably no one will object, but likely none of your responses will be as positive as the maximum positive response from wearing a T-shirt with a slogan on it. Both strategies can be useful, depending on what you are trying to accomplish.
Personally, I wear shirts with nerdy slogans on them, and anecdotally have had several positive interactions with people who came up to me to say "I like your shirt." (And I doubt I've lost much by turning people off.)
Also, I'm unconvinced that, in a casual context, wearing a shirt with a slogan on it is as negative as you suggest. I see people wearing shirts with slogans I don't get all the time, and I think I just ignore them, or occasionally ask what they mean (which rarely gets me very far conversation-wise, but doesn't cause me to dislike the person).
On the other hand, if you're trying to project an aura of Serious Grownup, it's probably a bad idea.
EDIT: Unless you're talking about shirts with controversial slogans, I suppose. That's even more high-variance, but again, in some contexts could still be a good idea. (I was thinking of things like "Engineering: It's like math, but louder.")
True. This works for attractiveness as well. Generally stylish clothes will give you low variance, while dressing to please a specific crowd (goths, emo rockers, etc.) will give you high variance.
If I'm going to wear clothing with words, is there any marginal harm to having it be rationalist themed? I frequently find myself in situations where it's the norm, regardless of whether it's a good idea instrumentally. My system one says conforming there is good, but it's possible I'm wrong there.
The question is, can you make people think: "I would like to be as awesome as that person. I see he is wearing a rationality shirt. I should check that out." ?
Here are two alternatives:
- People might think that rationality is something that's only for nerdy looking folk who wear +1 epic shirts.
- People's brains might associate rationality with other concepts that are often seen on shirts, such as Jesus and Guns.
If you wanted to talk to someone about rationality, what do you think would help more in impressing them: a rationalist wearing normal, stylish clothes, or a rationalist wearing a t shirt with a slogan printed on it?
In impressing them? Probably the former, unless the slogan happens to strike them as clever.
In bringing me to their attention and encouraging them to approach me in a crowd full of people wearing normal stylish clothes and T-shirts with non/anti-rationalist slogans? Undoubtedly the latter.
In encouraging them to approach me in a crowd full of people wearing T-shirts with rationalist slogans? It's very hard to say, I don't expect either to have much effect there..
What do you expect in those scenarios?
Impressing, persuading - the difference between these is mostly insignificant when dealing with non-rationalists. I chose the word due to my belief that rational argument is an inefficient method for spreading rationality. If you encounter a non-rationalist, you may rationally explain him why rationality is great, but if you leave a good impression on an emotional level, he'll probably remember the lesson about rationality much longer. Ideally we probably want to do both. Arguing people into changing their way of thinking is vastly more difficult than creating in them a desire to change. This tends to be supported by studies in psychology - people are much more likely to do things and be happy about it when their own brain gets to explain why they are doing it.
A practical example of this would be a popular movie star speaking about rationality on Oprah. Regardless of what the star said, interest in rationality would almost certainly increase, and so would the average level of rationality, even if slightly. (If the star spoke well, the effect would be larger, of course.) I'm quite certain that this would have a much larger effect on spreading rationality than having someone in a t-shirt make an argument about rationality in front of the same amount of viewers.
How many Less Wrong users have become more rational, not because of any rational arguments they read, but because they were impressed by Yudkowsky or someone else? I'll be the first to admit that being impressed by the people here was a significant factor in getting me to study rationality in more depth.
Getting people to change their ways of thinking is extremely difficult. I say that wearing a dorky T-shirt while attempting this will only make the task more difficult.
It is difficult to explain why clothes (or vehicles) with slogans printed on them are bad for you. If it helps, consider that the vast majority of people you see outside are not wearing clothes with witticisms, they have all decided that it is not beneficial. The exceptions are mainly religious, political, and other extremists.
It's interesting that you mention religion in the same paragraph in which you advocate forming beliefs based on the behaviour of the masses.
Is there a better method for forming beliefs about fashion than observing the people whose sense of style you want to understand?
Wearing clothes with slogans written on them is a bad idea socially. It is quite unlikely that anyone will ask you about it, and even less likely that such an interaction will result in any good. All the negative social effects are likely to overshadow the few positive encounters you may have. Even if you wear the clothes with the slogan in the appropriate social context, like a Less Wrong meetup, they don't add any value.
If you wanted to talk to someone about rationality, what do you think would help more in impressing them: a rationalist wearing normal, stylish clothes, or a rationalist wearing a t shirt with a slogan printed on it?
It is difficult to explain why clothes (or vehicles) with slogans printed on them are bad for you. If it helps, consider that the vast majority of people you see outside are not wearing clothes with witticisms, they have all decided that it is not beneficial. The exceptions are mainly religious, political, and other extremists.
In response to
Rationality Quotes June 2013
If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!
Lin Chi
If you find the truth, continue the search for it regardless.
Forget about arriving at the truth, rather practice the methods that brings you closer to truths.
The intended meaning has something to do with the Buddhist concept that the practice of Buddhism (basically meditation) is the realization of Buddhahood, and instead of accepting any Buddha you meet, you must simply continue your practice.
There is no thermodynamic law stating that fat cells must release fat just because your body needs it. If you're built so that weight loss is impossible and you try eating less, your metabolism slows down - possibly in much the same way it would as if you tried eating less and you had no fat cells whatsoever. I can't cite studies but wouldn't be particularly surprised to see that muscle gets cannibalized instead of fat being lost, if you try to eat less than the most slowed metabolism needs. And if most metabolically disprivileged people stop trying to eat below their minimal metabolic rate before doing significant damage to themselves, that's just the survival instinct kicking in. I would seriously not be surprised to find that fat people have starved to death without their fat cells releasing fat, and blinded by preconceptions, nobody managed to notice or note down when this occurred. But I would expect that to be rare - most people, if their body tells them they're starving to death, will eat. This gets cited as weakness of will.
Metabolically privileged people assume that if you eat less, your fat cells will release fat. (Bitter laughter.) No. We don't have energy storage units like you do, we have energy retention units. Calories go in, they don't come out. Or if they do, it's on special occasions we don't understand how to predict or trigger, and which don't have any obvious relation to attempts to eat less or exercise more. The laws of thermodynamics do not require that a physical fat cell physically release stored lipids when you eat less or exercise more - and if your fat cells are malfunctioning, they just won't.
In that case medical interventions to remove fat directly are inadvisable as the fat will simply be regained, psychological treatment is required instead.
This is simply wrong. If you start out metabolically disprivileged, medical interventions to directly remove fat result in reduced appetite as your fat cells no longer suck glucose and fatty acids out of your bloodstream.
That does sound very sensible. I stand corrected.
Can anyone recommend any further reading on the subject?
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
On many occasions "difficult to explain" turns out to be a hint for "not actually true".
Indeed. The vast majority are wearing clothes bearing advertisement for various brands. I would think twice before concluding that they have decided that is beneficial.
Is this actually an useful heuristic? It seems to me that most things in the world are very difficult to explain truthfully, but especially this case.
We can probably agree that wearing a puffy shirt would be a bad idea, but can anyone really easily explain why?
Perhaps someone could explain why some specific item of clothing is not fashionable, and I am at fault to some extent here, because I have not studied the psychology of fashion in enough depth to eloquently explain this. I am not aware of many people who have attempted to explain specific fashions in a manner that could withstand rational analysis, however.
In earlier centuries, costume rules were a matter not merely of following fashion but of obeying the law of the land. No knight under the rank of lord was permitted to wear a tunic that failed to cover his buttocks.
If the explanation for the original point was: "You can't wear t-shirts with slogans because the King has decreed it against the law", would that be a much more satisfying answer? If so, then the answer you're looking for is that these days fashion is slightly more democratic, but the rules of costume are still mainly decreed by the people with the highest social status, and they have judged t-shirts with slogans on them unfashionable for anyone below a specific rank.
There are better explanations for fashion certainly, but those require intricate knowledge of immensely complex systems, with the system in this case being the synergistic combination of all human animals - all of human society. It is only my opinion, and someone could easily prove me wrong by doing it, but it seems to me that truly explaining a particular fashion in a holistic sense would be a task that well deserves the description — "difficult".
Desmond Morris writes well about the subject in his book "Peoplewatching". I found it to be one of the better written and argued writings in the field.