However, my experience with SI is that when I tried to raise these concerns back in 2005/2006 I was subjected to a series of attacks that culminated in a tirade of slanderous denunciations from the founder of SI, Eliezer Yudkowsky.
I am frequently subjected to abusive personal attacks in which reference is made to Yudkowsky's earlier outburst
Link to the juicy details cough I mean evidence?
I strongly suspect the rationality of the internet would improve many orders of magnitude if all arguments about arguments were quietly deleted.
I'm definitely a "liberal" (among other things), but I'm by no means excluding group values and group interests from my ethics. I see the question of individual rights vs group-ism, cooperation, etc as a 90% false dichotomy of the worst and most damaging kind. Liberals are silly and near-sighted enough for letting this shit go on, but hard-line conservatives are arguably even worse (and more guilty) for stirring up the hostility and moving the focus from entirely solvable, compromise-accepting practical issues (e.g. abortion) to some metaphysical conflict of responsibility vs selfishness.
I do not deny the essentially adversarial nature of differing values' and attitudes' interaction in society, but it doesn't mean we should escalate the inevitable debate to an all-out war.
(Sorry for blatant meta-politics, but I'm trying to call out mind-killing here, not increase it.)
The dichotomies are always rationally solvable, but we are hardwired to loathe compromise on moral issues.
I think it is possible to interpret my comment is saying something bad about conservatives and good about liberals. However, what I wanted, rather, was to make the point that we (as liberals or liberal rationalists) need to think about taking group binding moral foundations as seriously as conservatives do, because if we dismiss them as outdated evolutionary vestige, that will definitely not solve social and political polarization (which in the US, at least, is at record levels).
What "taking seriously" should mean I'm not completely sure. But I think it starts at understanding and using what is known to work while attempting to avoid the known pitfalls (much like the OP suggests). And as this comment thread demonstrates, that seems to be a bit of a tightrope.
Thus, this has never been a disagreement over facts at all, but rather, a moral loathing of our very kind.
This sounds unnecessarily hyperbolic. On what grounds do you claim that this difference causes 'loathing' often enough for it to be termed generally as such?
I think the dislike is visceral, coming from the same place that makes incest feel icky. Haidt's research seems to show people feel moral conclusions first, then rationalize them. I think it possible that a fairly large percentage of conservatives experience an intense visceral disgust for any blatant disregard of group binding moral foundations.
But my conclusion from that is not that conservatives should be vilified; just that we need to understand that the issue of group --vs- individual moral emphasis is a lot more than just a friendly disagreement over facts. The OP is making the point that we need to take group-binding dynamics seriously, both in understanding and using them to our advantage.
I disagree. Techniques for spreading rationality are highly rational to learn. Considering subjects such as Why Our Kind Can't Cooperate I dare say that it's almost essential for the project of disseminating rationality that LessWrong as a group learns how group dynamics work and how successful communities are built. If we consider being rational a good thing then we ought to make it as attractive as possible to feel as part of the rationalist group.
Strong agreement with your disagreement. I just finished Haidt's The Righteous Mind and observe that rationalists seem to gravitate towards a liberal, individualistic moral foundation, while the rest seem to automatically balance that with, or favor, group binding moral foundations. Thus, we rationalists (and liberals in general) are seen as immoral because of our tendency to disregard others' crucial moral foundations of ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, purity/sanctity. Thus, this has never been a disagreement over facts at all, but rather, a moral loathing of our very kind.
I'm sure that major life circumstances (external events) greatly affect happiness levels - divorce, death of a loved one, major illness, losing one's job or home. People adapt but it could take years to return to previous levels of happiness, if ever (Lucas).
I got to this blog because I thought that by delving into research on happiness, I would find a way back to happiness; it's been five years since I lost it. What I've learned is that the authentic happiness I felt while married and raising a family - now replaced by singledom and an empty nest - will take great effort to achieve through activities that offer temporary relief and only a semblance of the real thing. Including exercising. While I was happy, I didn't need to question it, I simply felt it. I wonder why the loss of happiness feels like a major internal organ is gone, leaving a huge empty space inside? I suppose we need to remember that grief is also part of life, not only happiness.
Thanks for this blog, it's been helpful.
What I've learned is that the authentic happiness I felt while married and raising a family - now replaced by singledom and an empty nest - will take great effort to achieve through activities that offer temporary relief and only a semblance of the real thing.
I wonder why the loss of happiness feels like a major internal organ is gone, leaving a huge empty space inside?
This sounds like serious depression to me, not just reduced happiness; you might consider method 1 first. Sympathies and best wishes.
Also note that millions more are injured rather than killed every year, making the dangers far higher than the death statistics indicate.
And brain injury is particularly prevalent:
In a previous analysis of injuries among drivers admitted to Maryland hospitals following car crashes, it was noted that 37.7% incurred a TBI (Dischinger, 1999).
From Causes and Outcomes of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: An Analysis of Ciren Data
So, feedback requested on the Dr. Zany thing. Made an otherwise dry post more interesting to read, or pointless and distracting?
Challenge the mutability of the antecedent. Since AS-01's counterfactual is of the form ”if A, then B”, Dr. Zany could question the plausibility of A.
brain balks at "mutability", stumbles over "antecedent", sprains ankle on "counterfactual"
”Baloney!” exclaims Dr. Zany. ”No TV reporter could ever have wandered past, let alone seen the robbery!”
Oh, I get it! Brain jumps up and down with glee.
I found it helpful and entertaining.
Clever remake of the old parable, thought-provoking, definitely worth an upvote.
I am against cryonics, and here's why (though I would love to hear a rebuttal):
Cryonics seems inherently, and destructively, to the human race, grossly selfish. Not only is cryonics a huge cost that could be spent elsewhere helping others, nature and evolution thrive on the necessity of refreshing the population of each species. Though it's speculation, I would assign the probability of evolution continuing to work (and improve) on the human race as pretty high - what gain does the human species have in preserving humans from the 21st century indefinitely, when 23rd century or later humans are better?
Overall, in no way can I think of cryonics benefiting anyone other than the individual's (I think simply genetic) desire to avoid death (maybe it benefits future anthropologists I guess), and the cost of cryonics, given that, is what turns me off so much. I can understand people indulging themselves every once in a while, but since I tend to think gratuitous selfishness is a bad thing for the human race, I find myself understanding cryonic-phobic people more than cryonics-supporters.
Is this an invalid view?
Cryonics seems inherently, and destructively, to the human race, grossly selfish.
Cryonics is a cost, yes, but living is a cost as well. Is spending my money on cryonics more or less selfish than a 2-week vacation in the Bahamas every year for 10 years? In both cases, my money supports an economy, and I get a benefit --a recharge, in the latter, a possible regeneration in the former-- that will enhance my contribution to society.
View more: Next
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
I strongly suspect the rationality of the internet would improve many orders of magnitude if all arguments about arguments were quietly deleted.
Okay, make that: I strongly suspect the rationality of the rational internet would improve many orders of magnitude if all arguments about arguments were quietly deleted