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

Comment author: ingive 18 January 2017 08:10:24PM *  0 points [-]

No, you don't. A perfect rationalist is not a sociopath because a perfect rationalist understands what they are, and by scientific inquiry can constantly update and align themselves with reality. If every single person was a perfect rationalist then the world would be a utopia, in the sense that extreme poverty would instantly be eliminated. You're assuming that a perfect rationalist cannot see through the illusion of self and identity, and update its beliefs by understanding neuroscience and evolutionary biology. Complete opposite, they will be seen as philanthropic, altruistic and selfless.

The reason why you think so is because of straw Vulcan, your own attachment to your self and identity, and your own projections onto the world. I have talked about your behavior previously in one of my posts. do you agree? I also gave you suggestions on how to improve, by meditating, for example. http://lesswrong.com/lw/5h9/meditation_insight_and_rationality_part_1_of_3/

In another example, as you and many in society seem to have a fetish for sociopaths, yes you'll be a sociopath, but not for yourself, for the world. By recognizing your neural activity includes your environment and that they are not separate, that all of us evolved from stardust, and practicing for example meditation or utilizing psychotropic substances, your "Identity" "I" "self" becomes more aligned, and thus what your actions are directed to. That's called Effective Altruism. (emotions aside, selflessness speaks louder in actions!)

Edit: You changed your post after I replied to you.

[1] ETA: Before I get nitpicked to death, I mean the symptoms often associated with high-functioning sociopathy, not the clinical definition which I'm aware is actually different from what most people associate with the term.

Still apply. Doesn't matter.

Comment author: niceguyanon 18 January 2017 08:33:41PM 0 points [-]

If I remember correctly username2 is a shared account, so the person are talking to now might not be whom you have had previously conversed with. Just thought you should know because I don't want you to mistake the account with a static person.

Comment author: ingive 18 January 2017 05:40:25PM 0 points [-]

You have been strongly associated with a certain movement, and people might not want to engage you in conversation even on different topics,

You forgot to say that you think that. But for username 2's point, you had to reiterate that you think.

because they are afraid your true intention is to lead the conversation back to ideas that they didn't want to talk with you about in the first place.

That's unfortunate if it is the case if ideas which are outside their echo chamber create such fear, then what I say might be of use in the first place, if we all come together and figure things out :)

I think username2 was making a non-serious cheeky comment which went over your head and you responded with a wall of text touching on several ideas. People sometimes just want small exchanges and they have no confidence in you to keep exchanges short.

It was but it speaks of his underlying ideas and character to even be in the position to do that. I don't mind it, I enjoy typing walls of texts. What would you want me to respond, if at all?

Agreeing with the sentiment that people probably aren't engaging with this question because it's too tiresome to summarize all the information that is available, and what is available is probably incomplete as well. By asking such a broad question rather than a narrower, specific, or applied question, you won't get many responses.

Yeah, I think so too, but I do think there is a technological barrier in how this forum was setup for the type of problem-solving I am advising for. If we truly want to be Less Wrong, it's fine with how it is now, but there can definitely be improvements in an effort for the entire species rather than a small subset of it, 2k people.

Comment author: niceguyanon 18 January 2017 07:22:16PM 0 points [-]

It was but it speaks of his underlying ideas and character to even be in the position to do that.

What do you mean by this? Assuming its a joke, why does it speaks to his character and underlying ideas; why would it, it wasn't meant for you to take seriously.

What would you want me to respond, if at all?

Probably not at all.

Comment author: ingive 18 January 2017 11:28:53AM *  0 points [-]

Replace all humans with machines.

Changing human behavior is probably more efficient than to build machines, to align more with reality. It's a question whether a means is a goal for you? If not, you would base your operations on the most effective action, probably changing behavior (because you could change the behavior of one, to equal the impact of your robot building, but probably more). I don't think replacing all humans with machines is a smart idea anyway. Merging biology with technology would be a smarter approach from my view as I deem life to be conscious and machines to not be. Of course, I might be wrong, but sometimes you might not have an answer but still give yourself the benefit of the doubt, for example, if you believed that every action is inherently selfish, you would still do actions which were not. By giving you the benefit of the doubt, if you figured out later on (which we did) that it is not the case, then that was a good choice. This includes consciousness since we can't prove the external world it would be wise to keep humans around or utilize the biological hardware. If we had machines which replaced all humans, then that would be not very smart machines to at least not keep some around in a jungle or so, which hadn't been contacted. Which undoubtedly mean unfriendly AI, like a paperclip maximizer.

I just want to tell you that you have to recognize what you're saying and how it looks, even though you only wrote 5 words, you could as well be supporting a paperclip maximizer.

That's basically related to the entire topic of this site. People probably aren't engaging with this question because it's too tiresome to summarize all the information that is available from that little search bar in the upper right corner.

What should I search for to find an answer to my question? Flaws of human behavior that can be overcome (can they?) like biases and fallacies is relevant, but it's quite specific however, I guess that's very worthwhile to go through to improve functionality. Something other would be stupid.

Comment author: niceguyanon 18 January 2017 05:20:13PM 0 points [-]

Why I think people are not engaging you. But don't take this as a criticism of your ideas or questions.

  • You have been strongly associated with a certain movement, and people might not want to engage you in conversation even on different topics, because they are afraid your true intention is to lead the conversation back to ideas that they didn't want to talk with you about in the first place.

  • I think username2 was making a non-serious cheeky comment which went over your head and you responded with a wall of text touching on several ideas. People sometimes just want small exchanges and they have no confidence in you to keep exchanges short.

  • Agreeing with the sentiment that people probably aren't engaging with this question because it's too tiresome to summarize all the information that is available, and what is available is probably incomplete as well. By asking such a broad question rather than a narrower, specific, or applied question, you won't get many responses.

Comment author: moridinamael 17 January 2017 06:35:56PM 1 point [-]

This is an unusual case. If we still had downvote activated, the early argumentative comments by Flinter would have been banished to oblivion, and this would essentially have been a non-event.

After reading this comment I decided to take a break from interacting with Flinter, and then resumed communicating with them with a firm resolution in mind to treat them in good faith even if I harbored doubts. I suppose I view it as a kind of challenge, like a Rubik's cube, to try to crack through to actually communicate with such a person. I still think there's about a 33% chance that I was right in my original assessment, that they're just here for the lulz. I never liked the downvote, in fact I was vocal about wanting to get rid of it, but I do wish there was some mechanism for constraining the impact someone like this can have on the forum.

Comment author: niceguyanon 17 January 2017 07:09:00PM *  0 points [-]

Do we have the same definition of a troll? Just wondering because the term seems to have drifted and I wonder where I stand. One sided flaming is what I would call it, because the person is hostile and insulting, resulting from emotional discussion. IMO Trolling requires the deliberate intent to provoke, as if that was his whole reason to post here. It's more likely that this person is dead serious, but socially inept (too strong?)

This person has written volumes of stuff in various places for years, seems unlikely that he's just messing with people for amusement. More likely that he is a true believer, just really bad at communication. I'd say Lumifer is lightly trolling (somewhat acceptably) because he is egging this person on, knowing full well that this person will make a spectacle of themselves.

Comment author: Vaniver 16 January 2017 10:43:57PM *  6 points [-]

I'm the person that moved Flinter's post to drafts, suggesting that he resubmit it as a linkpost to Nash's talk and put his commentary in a comment, instead of the primary post.

It's not Nash's most significant work, and it is not the most important topic in the world. Those sorts of statements are a major contributor to why I thought the post was bad.

(In case people are wondering if I'm politically motivated, Hayek, a person who Nash describes as thinking parallel thoughts, is my favorite political thinker. This is policing post quality, not content.)

Comment author: niceguyanon 17 January 2017 10:04:45AM 1 point [-]

Is it possible to use moderation tools to hide the parent comment or move it. It doesn't even belong here and others have been nice enough to offer good feedback regardless. This is a welcome thread, and it's being derailed with bizarre behavior.

Comment author: Flinter 16 January 2017 06:15:50PM 0 points [-]

I don't think I should have done what I did to get my first two karma points. I suspect it degrades the quality of the site at a rate in which rationality can't inflate it. But I'll save my reasoning and the discussion of it ftm. I am now able to post my discussion on its own it seems, so I did it.

2x cheers.

Comment author: niceguyanon 16 January 2017 06:39:52PM 2 points [-]

I suspect it degrades the quality of the site...

Your first paragraph venting your frustration at the 2 karma rule was unnecessary, but cool you realized that.

I think this post is fine as an Open Thread or as an introduction post. I don't see why it is necessary for its own discussion. Plus it seems like you are making an article stating that you will make an article. I don't think you need to do that. Just come right out and say what you have to say.

Comment author: niceguyanon 13 January 2017 09:50:33PM 0 points [-]

I have the same question as this OP. I didn't think any of the answers were helpful enough. Basically everything I could find regarding Assange's asylum with Ecuador stems from the threat of Sweden extraditing him to the U.S., however the threat of politically motivated deportation remains regardless of what happens in Sweden; the U.K. can just as well do it.

Comment author: niceguyanon 13 January 2017 05:59:47PM 1 point [-]

I don't know what to think about Ego Depletion. When I first read about it, it felt quite intuitive and the research on it was robust. It came up everywhere I read. Then the whole replication crisis thing happened and serious doubts were cast on it. I updated towards a weaker effect.

I haven't given it much thought since, until I was recently reminded of the study about mental fatigue on parole board judges and how chances of granting parole were greatest at the beginning of the work day and right after a food break(replenish mental resources).

If Ego Depletion is weak at best then what is going on with the parole study? My current epistemic status is that the effect is real and not debunked; but the effect may not be as universal (good for predicting parole and not so good for contrived cognitive experiments).

Comment author: waveman 12 January 2017 10:46:49PM *  8 points [-]

And

Generally the better educated are more prone to irrational political opinions and political hysteria than the worse educated far from power. Why? In the field of political opinion they are more driven by fashion, a gang mentality, and the desire to pose about moral and political questions all of which exacerbate cognitive biases, encourage groupthink, and reduce accuracy. Those on average incomes are less likely to express political views to send signals; political views are much less important for signalling to one’s immediate in-group when you are on 20k a year. The former tend to see such questions in more general and abstract terms, and are more insulated from immediate worries about money. The latter tend to see such questions in more concrete and specific terms and ask ‘how does this affect me?’. The former live amid the emotional waves that ripple around powerful and tightly linked self-reinforcing networks. These waves rarely permeate the barrier around insiders and touch others.

Something for LWers to think about. Being smart can make you more susceptible to some biases.

Comment author: niceguyanon 13 January 2017 02:37:28PM *  8 points [-]

Being smart can make you more susceptible to some biases.

Agree but Dominic is making a much stronger claim in this excerpt, and I wish he would provide more evidence. It is a big claim that

  • the more educated are prone to irrational political opinions
  • average incomes are less likely to express political opinions to send signals.

These are great anecdotes but have there been any studies indicating a link between social status and willingness to express political views?

Comment author: Lumifer 20 December 2016 08:19:27PM *  0 points [-]

First, the question isn't whether nitpicking is good or bad. It is bad by definition since the word carries negative connotations (the same meaning with positive connotations would be called something like "careful and thorough detail-oriented assessment"). The question is whether nitpicking is important and I haven't seen data or convincing arguments that it is.

Second, when you write "largely composed of annoyances" and "we should not be happy with an environment that rewards writing with serious flaws, but only annoys the best writers" you implicitly assume that most comments are nitpicks. There is no reason to make such an assumption (and where does "rewarding" come from, anyway?).

You seem to be ignoring important social norms

Which important social norms are they? and of which society?

Comment author: niceguyanon 11 January 2017 09:17:29PM 0 points [-]

You have been noticeably not commenting. Care to comment why?

View more: Next