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

Comment author: theguyfromoverthere 25 July 2014 06:09:15PM 1 point [-]

I wonder if the same effect is had staring into someone's eyes over webcam.. The only person that I can really see trying this with is my wife and I have no problem looking into her eyes. I feel like we'd be skewed because we're so familiar with each other...

Comment author: theguyfromoverthere 25 July 2014 04:40:26PM 1 point [-]

I thought it was comical that I clicked the O*NET link and spent a good 10min or so on that site just to come back to the next heading which was "Handling Impulsiveness"

Well played, author! Thanks for the sequence!

In response to Applause Lights
Comment author: Ray 11 September 2007 06:45:08PM 131 points [-]

You have, I think, come upon the essence of modern political speeches.

In response to comment by Ray on Applause Lights
Comment author: theguyfromoverthere 23 June 2014 05:16:37PM 4 points [-]

I was going to say this as well. Your last paragraph here is like every presidential speech that I've ever watched.

Comment author: theguyfromoverthere 20 June 2014 05:28:02PM 0 points [-]

I think this is exciting. I'm going to start making my own words for groups of things. I'm a java/.net programmer so I'm used to object-oriented so it's natural for me to group things that may be used again!

Comment author: Caledonian2 03 February 2008 11:44:54PM 0 points [-]

It is a common misconception that you can define a word any way you like.

Incorrect. It is not a misconception. There are consequences of choosing to define a word that can lead to error if they are ignored, but that does not constrain the definition.

you can't logically classify Socrates as human until you observe him to be mortal.

Also incorrect. Mortality can be a trait possessed by all humans, yet not be needed to identify something as human. If Socrates meets all the necessary criteria for identification as human, we do not need to observe his mortality to conclude that he is mortal.

It is a trivial objection to say that the definition of human might not reflect the nature of the world. That is the case with all definitions: we can label concepts as we please, but it requires justification to assert that the concepts are present in reality.

Comment author: theguyfromoverthere 20 June 2014 05:26:59PM 0 points [-]

I think this is in the context of somebody insisting that Socrates is human so he must be mortal.

If you are trying to prove mortality by claiming he's human, then all humans must be mortal for you to assume this.

I agree, though, that, perhaps the statement was a little vague.

Comment author: Tristram_Brelstaff 27 December 2007 09:31:30AM 17 points [-]

So, if you are an emperor wanting honest advice on your wardrobe, then Asch's results suggest that 'planting' one or more dissenters would be a good way to get it.

Comment author: theguyfromoverthere 19 June 2014 06:05:49PM 2 points [-]

That is very clever!