= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
The question is whether anyone should believe pure maths now. If you are allowed to believe things that might possibly pay off, then the criterion excludes nothing.
Metabeleifs! Applied math concepts that seem useless now, have, in the past, become useful. Therefore, the belief that "believing in applied math concepts pays rent in experience" pays rent in experience, so therefore you should believe it.
How is this a rationality quote?
If this is a joke, I love it.
If this isn't a joke, it's probably just a typo.
Well, it's possible the asexuals got that way from accepting that they were never going to have sex.
Also smart people are more likely to take ideas seriously, including the idea prevalent in many social circles that having a sex drive is evil. See Scott Aaronson's recent comment about how he once begged to be chemically castrated.
I think that, while it is indeed possible for asexuality to arise that way, most evidence seems to point away from that conclusion....
Seems utterly foolish either way. Matt Taylor made a mistake, he apologized, I forgot his name and am only going by the evidence of your comment. We didn't "lose" anyone.
I agree. I only know the name 'cause I clicked through the links. Like, okay, maybe the ESA should hire someone who will say "don't wear that shirt over in front of the cameras to give the interview." But it really isn't a big deal
In response to
Rationality Quotes January 2015
How many more times must this happen? How many more brilliant people must we lose because they missed a social meeting? Are we done yet?
Rachel Haywire, Twitter concerning shirtgate.
I honestly don't understand whether this is criticising Matt Taylor or criticising Taylor's critics.
... Oh.
Hm. In that case, I think I'm still missing something fundamental.
I actually think that your internal dialogue was a pretty accurate representation of what I was failing to say. And as for self consistency having to be natural, I agree, but if you're aware that you're being inconsistent, you can still alter your actions to try and correct for that fact.
I second this question: Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but part of me craves a set of axioms to justify the initial assumptions. That is: Person A cares about a small number of people who are close to them. Why does this equate to Person A having to care about everyone who isn't?
For me, personally, I know that you could choose a person at random in the world, write a paragraph about them, and give it to me, and by doing that, I would care about them a lot more than before I had read that piece of paper, even though reading that paper hadn't changed anything about them. Similarly, becoming friends with someone doesn't usually change the person that much, but increases how much I care about them an awful lot.
Therefore, I look at all 7 billion people in the world, and even though I barely care about them, I know that it would be trivial for me to increase how much I care about one of them, and therefore I should care about them as if I had already completed that process, even if I hadn't
Maybe a better way of putting this is that I know that all of the people in the world are potential carees of mine, so I should act as though I aready care about these people in deference to possible future-me.
In response to
2014 Less Wrong Census/Survey
Did it! I'm shocked that my digit ratio is so high. Like, I figured that it was pretty high, being a bisexual genderfluid "man" (assigned at birth, that is), but I didn't expect it to be greater than 1. Also, it was much shorter than I expected.
But are there testable hypotheses in history? I just really want to know, because I have seen this argumentation pattern that I'd love to call 'instant historicising' whereas an argumenter says ' Oh this was a totally different situation and has so nothing to do with this other situation so we shouldn't even ever compare' whereas my mind goes bing - .
It would be easy to construct situations where historians could have opportunities to make and test hypotheses. Just find a section of history they don't know anything about, and give them a summary of 99 years, and ask them to predict what happens in the 100th. Or give them a summary of a couple years and ask them to fill in more complex details. Or give them descriptions of what happened on either side of a year, and ask them to figure out what happens during that year. Then see if they predict accurate things.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
-- Donald A. Norman The Art of Computer-Human Design p. 120, see e.g. here
This is an excellent quote... I had to write an essay last semester for one of my classes on how I would design my preferred interface, and I basically wrote my entire essay using this quote.