All of HungryTurtle's Comments + Replies

Ok, so then I would say that the soccer player in being empathetic to my objectives would be strengthening his or her emotional/ social capacity, which would benefit his or her health/ productivity, and thus benefit his or her soccer playing.

Could you explain your last paragraph a little more?

Fair enough, could you tell me what exactly it means to be a good rationalist?

Ok, so these skill sets contribute significantly to the productivity and health of a person. Then would you disagree with the following:

1. Social and emotional skills signifcantly contribute to health and productivity.
2. Any job, skill, hobby, or task that is human driven can benefit from an increase in the acting agents health and productivity
3. Therefore social and emotional skills are relevant (to some degree) to all other human driven skill sets

The feeling that I am jumping on nebu and the idea that I am advocating a straw vulcan is you using loaded words to make an extreme judement about my meaning and my motives. First of all, I am not trying to say a rational person has to be emotionless. The fact taht Emotions are important, doesn't mean that anyone invoking some emotional response is unconditionally right. Supporting something "not because you agree with it" but because you felt some personal attachment is the most common of pyschological reflexes. I am not telling Nebu that he ... (read more)

Additionally, saying that the East should look to the West for enlightenment doesn't mean there is no enlightenment to be found in the East. It just says that by far the more important enlightenment is more common in the West than the East.

Actually saying that the East should look to the West for enlightenment says nothing about where enlightenment is more or less common, or anything about a degree of enlightenment. This is the assumption you are bringing to the statement. All this statement implies are there are things that the East could learn from th... (read more)

Ok, then the next question is that would you agree for a human skills related to emotional and social connection maximize the productivity and health of a person?

Isn't saying that Yvain's final statement is

exactly backwards

also failing to make a distinction between a vaguely hostile comment and an extreme claim? To say it is exactly backwards is to imply that there is nothing wrong with steve jobs statement. I agree with you that some of Yvain's fallacies are distorted--most notably the assumption that those who liked the comment were venting out a subconscious lash at "hippies"--but that does not change the fact that Steve job’s statement contains huge logical issues.

First, Yvain is right that it i... (read more)

But I actually can't agree with your argument than "enlightenment" is a fallacy of equivocation. It IS the Enlightenment values of Bacon and Newton that brought us the enlightenment of vaccination and electricity---that's not a coincidence.

I think there is some confusion in Yvain's definition of the third type of enlightenment, and that is why you are missing the point. Yvain describes the third type of enlightenment as

"enlightenment", meaning achieving a state of nirvana free from worldly desire.

It would be better to think abo... (read more)

I'm trying to find a LW essay, i can't remember what it is called, but it is about maximizing your effort in areas of highest return. For example, if you are a baseball player, you might be around 80% in terms of pitching and 20% in terms of base running. to go from 80% up in pitching becomes exponentially harder; whereas learning the basic skill set to jump from dismal to average base running is not.

Basically, rather than continuing to grasp at perfection in one skill set, it is more efficient to maximize basic levels in a variety of skill sets related to target field. Do you know the essay i am talking about?

That depends, of course, on what the society values. If I value oppressing people, making me more efficient just lets me oppress people more efficiently. If I value war, making me more efficient means I conduct war more efficiently.

So does rationality determine what a person or group values, or is it merely a tool to be used towards subjective values?

Sure. But that scenario implies that wanting to kill ourselves is the goal we're striving for, and I consider that unlikely enough to not be worth worrying about much.

My scenario does not assume that al... (read more)

I don't think we have a way of slowing technological progress that a) affects all actors (it wouldn't be a better world if only those nations not obeying international law were making technological progress), and b) has no negative ideological effects.

By "negative ideological effects" do you mean the legitimization of some body of religious knowledge? As stated in my post to Dave, if your objective is to re-condition society to have a rational majority, I can see how religious knowledge (which is often narratively rather than logically sequen... (read more)

Honestly, I would moderate society with more positive religious elements. In my opinion modern society has preserved many dysfunctional elements of religion while abandoning the functional benefits. I can see that a community of rationalists would have a problem with this perspective, seeing that religion almost always results in an undereducated majority being enchanted by their psychological reflexes; but personally, I don’t see the existence of an irrational mass as unconditionally detrimental.

It is interesting to speculate about the potential of a... (read more)

What would you say if I said caring about my goals in addition to their own goals would make them a better soccer player?

Thanks for the link. I'll respond back when I get a chance to read it.

Could you show me where he argues this?

The idea of using your time and various other resources carefully and efficiently is a good virtue of rationality. Framing it as being irrational is inaccurate and kinda incendiary.

Here is my reasoning for choosing this title. If you don't mind could you read it and tell me where you think I am mistaken.

I realize that saying 'rationally irrational' appears to be a contradiction. However, the idea is talking about the use of rational methodology at two different levels of analysis. Rationality at the level of goal prioritization potentially results in th... (read more)

In your article, you seemed to be saying that you specifically think that one shouldn't have a single "final decision" function at the top of the meta stack. That's not going to be an easily accepted argument around here, for the reasons I stated above.

Yeah, this is exactly what I am arguing.

For technical reasons, it is always possible (and also usually helpful) to describe this as a single function or algorithm, typically around here called one's "utility function" or "terminal values".

Could you explain the technical... (read more)

So you didn't just go through and down vote a ton of my posts all at once?

I understand what you are saying; you are saying that for the speaker of the statement it is not irrational, because the false statement might meet their motives. Or in other words, that rationality is completely dependent on the motives of the actor. Is this the rationality that your group idealizes? That as long as what I say or do works towards my personal motives it is rational? So if I want to convince the world that God is real, it is rational to make up whatever lies I see fit to delegitimize other belief systems?

So religious zealots are rational ... (read more)

Or it is just polite

(Leaving aside the problems with declaring a course of action "irrational" without reference to a goal...)

If you make a claim about the character of another person or the state of reality do you or do you not need some evidence to support it?

I can be wrong about your motivations, and you can be wrong about your motivations.

Isn't being rational about being less wrong, so if some declarative statements can be wrong wouldn't it be rational to avoid making them?

(I don't suppose you'd be enlightened if I said "Yes, that's incorrect")

Tell me honestly, do you really think that it is rational to make a declarative statement about something you know nothing about?

Do you consider it irrational to say the sky is blue when you are in a room with no window?

No, because there is reason and evidence to support the statement that the sky is blue. The most obvious of which is that it has been blue your entire life.

No offense, but your example is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. I am not saying tha... (read more)

If by "not intentionally driven" you mean things like instincts and intuitions, I agree strongly.

Yes, exactly.

if you could tweak your brain to make certain sorts of situations trigger certain automatic reactions that otherwise wouldn't, or vice versa, what (if anything) would you pick?

I think both intentional and unintentional action are required at different times. I have tried to devise a method of regulation, but as of now, the best I have come up with is moderating against extremes on either end. So if it seems like I have been overly... (read more)

So Mr. Thomblake,

If someone were to make a statement about what another person was sincere about, without even knowing that person, without ever having met that person, or without having spent more than a week interacting with that person, would you say their statement was irrational?

Yes it is irrational to say something is a lie if you have no way of knowing it is a lie or not. Is this incorrect?

I am taking your subsequent rhetoric as confirmation that you do in fact agree "are you actually claiming" is a type of applause lights terminology.

I infer further, from what you've said elsewhere, that it's a type of repression that works by making some users less able to make comments/posts than others, and some comments less visible to readers than others, and some posts less visible to readers than others. Is that correct?

Yes.

Assuming it is, I infer you consider it a bad thing for that reason. Is that correct?

No, not exactly. As I to... (read more)

I do that all the time. There seems to be nothing in the meaning of the word that means it cannot be applied to another.

Let me rephrase, it is irrational to make a declarative statement about the inner workings of another person's mind, seeing as there is no way for one person to fully understand the mental state of another.

That isn't true. It is simply a different form of communication. Description is different from argumentative persuasion. It is not (necessarily) irrational to do the former.

You talk to me about semantic gymnastics? No, it is no... (read more)

You can still make comments disagreeing with other comments-which to me seems like a much better way of voicing your ideas than a silent downvote.

I think so to.

I believe that the karma cap on making posts (20 karma needed for a top level post) is partly to make sure members understand the vocabulary and concepts used on LessWrong before they start making posts,

I understand the purpose of it. I just think there are some problems with it.

what does see grandparent mean?

I do think the way negative karma works is a type of repression. Honestly I don't see how you could think otherwise.

And your use of "acutally claiming"?

Perhaps I was not clear enough. What I meant was that you saying "are you actually claiming" is applause light. Do you disagree?

Ok, then I probably made a mistake when I clicked on my new message from you. Sorry about that.

No, it doesn't. It's a blatant contradiction, which is by definition false.

Rational Irrationality is talking about rationality within two different levels of analysis. The result of being rational at the level of goal prioritization, the individual abandons rational methodology at the level of goal achievement.

L1- Goal Prioritization L2- Goal Achievement

If I am at a party I have desired outcomes for my interactions and experiences that produce goals. In prioritizing my goals I am not abandoning these goals, but placing them in the context of having des... (read more)

Why did you change your post here?

Ok, but your parent comment exists within a context. It was responding to Random832, who was responding to TheOtherDave's comment about democracy. I was not solely responding to you, but to your comment with the context of theotherdave's

In a game of soccer, you could want to improve teamwork, you could want to win the game, you could want to improve your skills, you could want to make a good impression. All these are potential goals of a game of soccer. There is a group of objecetives that would most accurately acheive each of these possible goals. I am suggesting that the for each goal, acheiving the goal to the utmost level requres an objective with relatively high resource demands.

Is that better?

And your use of "acutally claiming"?

It is a false overstatment. I agree with your point.

I feel that your use of "actually claiming" and "repression" here falls under the category of applause light. mentioned by thomblake.

The fact that my essay becomes significantly harder to find because 11-27 people ( had some positives) disliked it, what would you call that?

When you say "use above" I assume you are referring to TheOtherDave, because my questioning of the democratic principles of Lesswrong Karma were because it was described in response to my comment as democratic.

If humanity is as integral to our reality as you describe, then I am confused why our beliefs about how reality works don't totally control how reality actually works.

Wouldn't you say oxygen is integral to the current reality of earth? That does not mean that the current reality of earth is shaped by the will of oxygen. Saying that humanity is integral to the constitution of our reality is different from saying humanity consciously defines the constitution of its reality. Right?

No, your example is fine, but I would say it is the most elementary use of this idea. When faced with a serious threat to health it is relatively easy and obvious to realign goal-orientation. It is harder to make such realignments prior to facing serious damage or threats. In your example, a more sophisticated application of this idea would theoretically remove the possibility of twisting an ankle during training, excluding any extreme circumstances.

I imagine this might raise a lot of questions so let me explain a little more.

Training is not serious. The ... (read more)

I still don't think what I said is false, it is a rhetorical choice. Saying it is rational irrationality still makes sense, it just hits some buzz words for this group and is less appealing than choosing some other form of label.

Let’s say I am playing soccer. I have decided that any goal-orientation within my soccer game is ultimately not worth the expenditure of resources beyond X amount. Because of this I have tuned out my rational calculating of how to best achieve a social, personal, or game-related victory. To anyone who has not appraised soccer related goal-orientations in this way, my actions would appear irrational within the game. Do you see how this could be considered irrational?

I definitely understand how this idea can also be understood as still rational, it is becaus... (read more)