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

Comment author: AndHisHorse 31 March 2014 08:42:50PM 0 points [-]

How does that work for you? Have you ever tried a blade? I have not, and I am interested in knowing how the two compare. Particularly whether or not blade-based techniques (such as wetting your face with warm water) are helpful for electric shavers.

Comment author: ikrase 07 April 2014 11:25:07PM 0 points [-]

Have never used a blade. I have always had acne and other skin problems that would make it impractical, plus it was just what my parents introduced me to in adolescence. But definitely not wet.

Comment author: bramflakes 01 March 2014 02:00:43PM 1 point [-]
Comment author: ikrase 14 March 2014 10:15:42AM 0 points [-]

That's unexpected.

Comment author: ikrase 01 March 2014 12:35:44PM 0 points [-]

I think that a conception of heroic morality (basically, whether or not to use TDT, or choosing between act and rule utilitarianism) may be at the heart of many of the choices to be cooperative/nice or not. Many people seem to assume that they should always play the hero, and those more virtuous ones who don't seem to think that you would never be able to play the hero.

As an example, consider assassinating Hitler. It's not clear how Hitler could reprise this -- he is already killing people who disagree with him, and he is a single tyrant while you are an invisible individual. This does not apply, however, if you are in equal factions, say Fascists and Communists.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 28 February 2014 04:42:25AM *  1 point [-]

Okay, so, we don't know what the right answer is. But we know what the right answer ISN'T, right?

See Yvain's post on Schelling Fences on Slippery Slopes.

Like if there is a 0.00001% chance it is "the answer", but a 99.99999% chance to waste everyone's time and making some people angry, we should probably discard it. Why waste time when we can pursue that handful of ideas that have a much higher chance of improving the world?

You do realize that most people have the same opinion about the Singularity?

Comment author: ikrase 01 March 2014 12:28:18PM -1 points [-]

In the case of the Singularity, I'd say that most people don't consider probability and very largepayoffs.

Comment author: [deleted] 24 February 2014 12:34:38PM 0 points [-]

That paragraph sounds awful. No, I don't think that. I'll be lazy and point to John Scalzi I guess: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/

I don't think that individual advice is useless. I'm skeptical that certain people are giving useful advice. Useful here involves a criterion of novelty. Giving someone advice they have heard 1000 times is not helpful. I guess necessary but not sufficient is a good description of personal effort in this context.

Working three jobs doesn't leave a lot of time to get educated and then use that education to post large amounts of philosophical text on a Reddit like rationalist site. And being poor and black in the real world isn't the optimal condition for creating meat space walled gardens.

As far as individual action, its my opinion that individual charity is helpful but not sufficient. And often comes with coercion I don't approve of. Religious charity would be a good example here. Strings attached? More like ropes.

For the second thing you quoted, I wouldn't say that I am the most productive person in helping the less fortunate. Although that's somewhat for psychological and/or financial reasons. This is orthogonal to the efficacy of certain strategies to promote social change. Just because I don't turn on the faucet doesn't mean that if I did water wouldn't come out.

Comment author: ikrase 01 March 2014 12:25:17PM -1 points [-]

I think that the answer to this problem is that it will simply be neccesary for class oppression to be ended then.

Comment author: Pfft 25 February 2014 03:22:44AM *  4 points [-]

Done. I think the most significant point Chu made which didn't come across in the other summaries was that "some ideas are inherently dangerous and must not be allowed to spread", and that neoreaction is among those.

So I guess that a lot of the disagreement come down to how dangerous you believe the ideas are. A big reason I feel comfortable reading Moldbug looking for interesting points of view is that his ideas have lost so thoroughly---regardless of his feelings that black people would be better off as slaves, the probability that slavery will be reinstated in America is basically zero (except perhaps in a complete collapse of civilization). If I believed that discussing Moldbug carried an appreciable risk of destroying modern liberal society, then I wouldn't.

(Indeed, since the pseudo-nazi revival in Greece in recent years, I have felt a bit less comfortable about Moldbug too. Suddenly, liberal democracy seems slightly less secure).

Comment author: ikrase 01 March 2014 12:15:34PM 0 points [-]

Does Moldbug actually believe that?

Comment author: TheOtherDave 28 February 2014 02:59:00AM 12 points [-]

Whenever I read rhetoric like this, I really want the author to make a strong case for this actually being a new phenomenon... that twenty or fifty or a hundred or three hundred or however many years ago this "age" we're asserted to currently be in supposedly started, we didn't imagine that our political opponents were evil and their beliefs the result of various ethical flaws.

Does Bottum?

Comment author: ikrase 01 March 2014 12:04:04PM 0 points [-]

It's possible that we are forced to engage more with peopel we thhink are eivl.

Comment author: eli_sennesh 16 February 2014 07:24:29AM *  0 points [-]

Meeehhhhh. Ok, I'm going to slightly dissent and note that we're on our way to creating a second rise of fascism at the moment in much of the Western world. That is, even though our economies and societies are easily capable of keeping everyone alive, on a collective level we're currently choosing to force large numbers of people into Survival Mode, which frankly is an even greater mindkiller than blue-green politics. Get large numbers of people into Survival Mode and they start making really stupid decisions, like marching down the streets of the capital yelling "Jews out!" and demanding a strengthening of the military... in an EU member-state with barely any Jews in it.

Did I just refer to France or Greece? Both.

On the other hand, I don't think population trends really allow for militarization and total war anymore, and the rise of Asia means that someone's around to smack Europe and America when they get too stupid.

So we could be looking at some waves of terrorist violence if public policy remains terminally obstinate about forcing people into their brain's mind-killed survival mode no matter the material facts, but probably not another Great War.

Comment author: ikrase 22 February 2014 11:39:57PM 0 points [-]

I'm taking about a much worse scenario.

Comment author: eli_sennesh 28 January 2014 11:46:44PM 0 points [-]

So far we've already beaten Survival Darwinism, and we're on our way to beating Reproductive Darwinism. Civilization is good at that sort of thing.

Comment author: ikrase 15 February 2014 12:34:17AM -1 points [-]

Already we have been able to keep culture and hope alive in the midst of near-genocidal wars. Excepting mistakes such as a UFAI taking seriously "survival at any cost", I think that the risk of survival's demands trashing human joy is greatly lowered since 1950 and is unlikely to return.

Comment author: byrnema 09 January 2014 11:05:58PM *  2 points [-]

I suspect that the conclusions drawn by the authors are the opposite of what actually happening

Yes. Real human lives, which are indicated in a text based question, are sacred quantities. Virtual lives – especially if perceived as avatars – are not sacred quantities. There might be a cost ,depending on the context (it's 'mean') , but measurable and comparable.

To what extent were participants encouraged to answer the question as though there were real people, and not virtual people or avatars? Even with extensive coaching, it might be difficult to suspend the conditioned insensitivity we need for playing video games. (Did they look at the effect, if any, of previous video game experience?)

Comment author: ikrase 13 January 2014 01:33:17AM 1 point [-]

THe simulations look like they might have been developed using the tech from Half-Life 2, but with terrible quality animations. If the simulations were highly immersive, I might freak out because zombies. They also look less realistic than sequences seen in a number of popular violent video games (some of which offer considerable applications to apply utilitarian or unutilitarian choices.

Telling people with no exp. on violent video games to play Mass Effect all the way through, and record all their choices, and hesitations might be interesting for the cost.

View more: Next