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

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 01 May 2015 07:57:48PM *  8 points [-]

The real problem with the interface is that it is an interface. Interfaces get in the way. I don’t want to focus my energies on an interface. I want to focus on the job…I don’t want to think of myself as using a computer, I want to think of myself as doing my job.

-- Donald A. Norman The Art of Computer-Human Design p. 120, see e.g. here

Comment author: lalaithion 01 May 2015 08:29:33PM 3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 22 February 2015 10:41:03PM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: lalaithion 22 February 2015 11:15:06PM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 26 January 2015 02:11:58AM 0 points [-]

How is this a rationality quote?

Comment author: lalaithion 28 January 2015 06:03:26AM -1 points [-]

If this is a joke, I love it.

If this isn't a joke, it's probably just a typo.

Comment author: alienist 08 January 2015 05:32:05AM *  7 points [-]

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.

Comment author: lalaithion 08 January 2015 09:38:36AM -1 points [-]

I think that, while it is indeed possible for asexuality to arise that way, most evidence seems to point away from that conclusion....

Comment author: hairyfigment 01 January 2015 09:36:33PM 4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: lalaithion 03 January 2015 10:26:37AM 2 points [-]

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

Comment author: James_Miller 01 January 2015 03:18:26AM *  1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: lalaithion 01 January 2015 09:18:03PM 1 point [-]

I honestly don't understand whether this is criticising Matt Taylor or criticising Taylor's critics.

In response to comment by Decius on On Caring
Comment author: AmagicalFishy 25 November 2014 01:12:50AM 0 points [-]

... Oh.

Hm. In that case, I think I'm still missing something fundamental.

In response to comment by AmagicalFishy on On Caring
Comment author: lalaithion 25 November 2014 05:11:07PM 0 points [-]

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.

In response to comment by Decius on On Caring
Comment author: AmagicalFishy 23 November 2014 10:39:05PM *  1 point [-]

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?

In response to comment by AmagicalFishy on On Caring
Comment author: lalaithion 23 November 2014 11:32:52PM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: lalaithion 23 October 2014 05:36:04AM *  54 points [-]

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.

Comment author: spatiality 17 October 2014 04:58:28PM 1 point [-]

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 - .

Comment author: lalaithion 17 October 2014 05:32:59PM 3 points [-]

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