All of JackEmpty's Comments + Replies

Yes, but I've got the complicated issue of taking your interjection entirely truthfully. I don't strongly believe you have any motivation to lie to me, but I may want to go through a few just to verify.

In any case, I'm not going to do it now, just when I have some spare time and am not browsing other comments.

This isn't even an interesting thread relative to other flame wars we've had!

I only really started posting comments in March of this year. Reading the comments at all about a month or so before then, and have been reading LW itself for a little ov... (read more)

Can I take back what I said about being cool with you tazing me?

I think I'm just going to go read this thing in order and ignore any responses to my comments for a bit...

2wedrifid
That sounds like an inefficient use of your time (also note that the conversation spans several posts). This isn't even an interesting thread relative to other flame wars we've had!

In the interest of full disclosure, I read the majority of this exchange in unordered chunks from the Recent Comments and mostly-backwards by going up context levels and trying to figure it out. And like I said to paper-machine I don't mean to say I'm exceptionally good at judging sanity violations, just being pithy.

I'll probably later on read them in some more-ordered fashion and see if I would taze luke too (even taking into account your claim you would).

Glad to know you'd be there to taze me if I started to go insane. It is appreciated. Not that I'm eva... (read more)

7wedrifid
I can see why reading in that order/style would leave you just shooting Silas. :) Chronologically Luke. He was insane way back when the claims were first made/not defended and Silas hadn't gone insane yet. If I were to enter the room now after observing from outside I would shoot Silas first, pointedly shoot Luke as well and give everyone else in the room a stern look. Then I'd confiscate your tazer and turn in my confessors hood myself. Because I don't want that kind of responsibility. I'd keep the tazers. Because I have yet to meet anyone who I would trust to confessor at me, even though there are those whose advice I value. I would always take care to position myself with my back to the wall such that I could see the movements of any confessors and rely on my reflexes and laser tag prowess to protect me from any nosy interventionists. If necessary I'd take them all out in a massive confessor tazing spree.

If I were a Confessor I would have tazed you by now.

Thanks for pointing that out. Typing quickly on the go does not afford much spell/grammar checking.

And yes, by all means, I only meant that from reading (most of) the comments and discussion on this topic that I in my current state would have tazed him, had I the job description of a Confessor. I didn't mean to imply that I was exceptionally good at judging sanity violations in any way, just a reference and a pithy statement of my view.

What about the part where you ignored the things you were asking for, and kept pressing on slightly-modified issues?

I'd call that trolling, along with the tone of some of your comments.. Silas, frankly, this could have been executed much more diplomatically.

-6SilasBarta

I agree. This makes a perfect end point to the discussion, and unless anything actually relevant comes up, not reiteration of the same points, ignoring their previous refutations, you should stop it here.

I've identified as that before, but I find it doesn't really apply well anymore.

Instead of slapping labels onto finer and finer grained levels of the fluid scale, I just have a clearly defined set of things that I will do with men, and a clearly defined set of things I will do with women, and that's sufficient for me.

I don't know many normal people and suspect they're dull.

Upvoted for this.

2[anonymous]
Ditto.

I think there's a reasonable middle ground between fire-and-forget posting that you're pushing, and the obsessive checking of posts that luke (very clearly) hyperbolized.

If I was a Confessor I would have tazed you by now.

I am alright with your original questions on this, but now you're stretching. You seem to be going to unnecessary extremes to find fault with anything and everything that Luke has said on this. I judge this a violation of sanity.

6wedrifid
I would have tazed you in turn. Not because you tazed Silas - I'd have done that too for his own sake. Rather, I'd have tazed you for the reasons you gave. You are observing two people bitching at each other each with their own (vastly different) kind of insanity and siding with the one with the most status and whose insane bitching is the most skilled (and socially typical). You are tazing the unsophisticated, lower status insane bitcher. The evidence given suggests you are well suited to be a player in the social environment but not a confessor. In the future, when it matters, you can be expected to act as a social enforcer and not as a last bastion of sanity.
7[anonymous]
That's probably why Confessors don't exist. We're not ready from them; we haven't grown up enough to cope with even a single, tiny dissenting voice without resorting to threats of counterfactual violence.
-6SilasBarta

Hey there! Welcome to Less Wrong!

I'd say you should read the Sequences, but that's clearly what you're doing :D. I'd suggest going ahead and introducing yourself over here.

I agree with you that some people might come up with the rule, but with unnecessary additions. The point of looking into the dark is that people may tend to add on to those extensions, when they should really be shaving them down to their core. And they can only do so (Or at least do so more effectively.) by looking into the dark.

Also, that's not exactly the commonly accepted definition ... (read more)

Yeah, it does seem to be phrased such as to imply that.

I can easily imagine a little kid, or a grown adult, declaring a given food or smell or sight "disgusting" without having any objection to its existence. (I can, of course, also imagine a news article in which people interviewed describe someone's immoral behavior as disgusting.)

So the denotative meaning only very mildly indicates a potential for moral revulsion. But used in certain contexts, it does have heavy (heavier) connotations of moral revulsion. I think it's useful to have words f... (read more)

2[anonymous]
Yes, I think I agree completely.

Likewise, but I think I have a bit of an obsession with learning obscure jargon... to the point of reading through the provided dictionaries in SF&F books a half dozen times, then referring to it when the words come up. And reading through online lists of terminology for fictional universes and technical activities.

But yes, searching for "squick" on here, I have seen it used as "eww", but I'm not quite sure from the brief glance if it had that particular tag, at least not explicitly.

A small nitpick, and without having read the other comments, so please excuse me if this has been mentioned before.

The 5 actions listed under the heading "Emotion and Deontological Judgments" squick me. But they don't disgust me.

From Urban Dictionary:

The concept of the "squick" differs from the concept of "disgust" in that "squick" refers purely to the physical sensation of repulsion, and does not imply a moral component.

Stating that something is "disgusting" implies a judgement that it is bad or wrong. S

... (read more)
2Desrtopa
I think this is more of a prescriptive than descriptive definition of squick. In my experience, people who use the term do not necessarily mean that they make no moral judgment, and in fact, many people, including those who use the term, do not seem to acknowledge a difference between "this gives me a physical sensation of repulsion" and "this is morally wrong."
1[anonymous]
That Urban Dictionary definition entails that "disgust" does imply a moral component or a judgement that something is universally wrong. However, in my experience, it does not. I can easily imagine a little kid, or a grown adult, declaring a given food or smell or sight "disgusting" without having any objection to its existence. (I can, of course, also imagine a news article in which people interviewed describe someone's immoral behavior as disgusting.) The OED Online describes the word mainly as a visceral reaction and only in passing says it may be brought about by a "disagreeable action". Instead of creating a new word for what "disgust" currently means and making "disgust" mean something else, perhaps we should leave "disgust" as it is and come up with a word for "moral revulsion". Something like "consternation" or "appallment".
6shokwave
Wow. I have the practice (common to sci-fi readers, I have heard) of taking unfamiliar words in my stride, attempting to figure them out in context, and taking it on faith that if I can't figure it out now, more context will soon be given. So that is how I approach new words on the internet (like 'squick'). This is only important because my internal definition for squick had developed into something very much like saying "eww" or the word disgust. It didn't have that crucial 'no moral component' tag for me. Interesting!
2lukeprog
Cool word!

At around age 16, I thought, "My parents own a cabin cruiser sailboat. They go up the river alone on the weekends... Oh. Well then." And went on with my life.

I'm 19 now. Some point between then and now I learned my father had a vasectomy. So at least they're enjoying themselves.

I may be an outlier in this situation, however. It just didn't exactly faze me at all.

So it's not only strategic ignorance, but selective ignorance too. By which I mean to say it only applies highly selectively.

If you have enough knowledge about the situation to know it's going to be 6/1 and 5/5, or 5/1 and 6/5, then that's a pretty clear distinction. You have quite a bit of knowledge, enough to narrow it to only two situations.

But as you raised, it could be 6/1 & 5/5, or 6/1 & 5/1000 or 6/(.0001% increase of global existential risk) & 5/(.0001% increase of the singularity within your lifetime).

The implications of your point being, if you don't know what's at stake, it's better to learn what's at stake.

1atucker
Yeah, pretty much.

I'm a graduate of an IB school, and even took a few IB-level courses, just not the full course.

I also took a ToK class, but our school offered AP and IB varieties, and I went with AP, not having the full-IB prerequisites.

I find that what really matters is the teacher teaching the coursework, not the class itself. OTOH, having a class about ToK in the first place is at least a step in the right direction.

Regardless, as an alumni (and still friends with a few of the teachers there), I may have a bit of an in to do some sort of presentation. Likely based off of Liron's YAAB.

Oh. Cool! Less disbelief, more illusion of transparency.

If a randomly selected person says, "I know X (academically) famous people." I myself usually assume through impersonal means.

Update'd. Carry on :D

"Know" in the sense EY used it != have read, watched interviews, etc.

I took it to mean more personal interaction (even if through comments online).

I have had classes with them, asked questions. and met them personally. I should have anticipated disbelief. And yes, I didn't notice that I categorized Marcello as non-math, sorry Marcello!

2lessdazed
Especially since "know of" exists as a common phrase to cover the meaning "have read, watched interviews, etc."

To paraphrase, there's a difference between resenting someone for having freedoms that you do not, and disliking the concept of "freedom". And these get mixed up on occasion.

The HamletHenna(now) wants to be more patient, humble, energetic, experienced, diversely skilled, productive, motivated, dedicated, disciplined, courageous, self reliant, systematic, efficient, cautious, pragmatic, sociable, polite, forgiving, courteous, cooperative, uninhibited, consistent, generous, expressive, coherent, observant, imaginative, adaptable, witty, inquisitive, gracious, tranquil, impartial, and sincere.

If there were a HamletHenna(past) that did not want to be more patient, humble, energetic, ..., would HamletHenna(now) want to edit themselves into HamletHenna(past) to save the trouble of becoming more patient, humble, energetic, ...?

This comment is well below the threshold, but I will reply anyway...

This article is less about passing judgements, and more about understanding what happens in another person's mind.

You seem to be very new to the site, so I recommend reading some of the Sequences, or at the very least the one of which this article is a member to gain a little more context.

I am just trying to assist in further discussion, so if you respond negatively to this, I won't comment further. I won't assume you are a troll now, but a negative response to help would raise my probabil... (read more)

Ah, shoot, my mistake for not searching first.

you're other-optimizing

less of this genre of writing

While I agree with the first, I don't see how the second follows. Would an adjustment in delivery to be more like "These are methods for solving problem X that worked for me, in case you hadn't considered attempting something similar in solving X for yourself." be more acceptable?

Unless you're against the personal-self-help-story sort of writing in its entirety for other reasons?

I guess I'm just asking for an elaboration on why you wouldn't want to see this sort of writing.

ETA: Or... exactly ... (read more)

0wedrifid
If they did follow paper-machine would have been making an error. The grammatical structure is "not because (), but because()".
[anonymous]270

"These are methods for solving problem X that worked for me, in case you hadn't considered attempting something similar in solving X for yourself."

No, it's not the delivery that I take issue with. It's the unintended consequences. See this.

If LW must tackle self-help, I want to see meta-analyses of published science. I want sample sizes bigger than one. If a writer feels compelled to write down "what worked for them", then in the name of Bayes, at least set up an ad-hoc internet survey first. Gather some data about how people actuall... (read more)

Just to be pedantic: Enjoying being wrong probably not good.

Enjoying having been wrong, and now being (potentially) less wrong is good.

But the latter doesn't make as good a title :D.

9pjeby
Better still: enjoying having been able to notice whether you were right or wrong.

I'd interpret "old age" as "(neurological [and therefore identity] breakdown as a result of common diseases from) old age".

Or is it, as I increasingly suspect as I edit and re-edit this comment, that I'm a total dick?

Upvoted for having a very good point, downvoted for being a dick, then upvoted again for having attempted to edit out dickishness :D

IE8 (work machine) and XP.

And yes, I see it too. Odd.

Note: assumption made that thought is in a particular language.

I can speak English and am learning Esperanto. When I think of the referent known by the English pointer "dog" my mind most strongly associates the pointer "dog" and much less strongly the pointer "hundo".

But as per internal narratives? I'd agree, yes, that articulating words, whether in an internal narrative or externally spoken, is separate from understanding.

I think what byrnema is saying is that they don't articulate their running internal narrative. They are developing an internal narrative along with the worldess-concept kind of thought that is already in place.

I don't know one way or the other if explicitly mentioning a group of rationalists is a good idea or not, so bear that in mind...

But I'm think of ways to spin it that might sound better than "club", while still being accurate: "Rationalist association" "rationalist society" "rationalist fellowship" "community" "fraternity" "(semi-official) group of rationalist individuals who meet regularly for discussion"

2jimrandomh
I've gotten positive responses to "rationality dojo" the few times I've used the phrase.
1Raemon
I refer to us as a "Group" or "Community." I think it's probably a good idea to include a question about that, since one of our potential goals IS to use this information to build communities.

No guarantees to the accuracy of this data, but InformationIsBeautiful is TYPICALLY fairly reliable and will cite sources.

But you may want to rethink that.

ETA: And I don't know about you, but I have enough survival/first aid skills to survive without external medical care, electricity, or painkillers.

2Houshalter
The real problem with nukes isn't the amount of things they can physically destroy, but the radiation left afterwards which would kill most of the population and leave huge areas of land uninhabitable for generations. And any survivors would be left with collapsed economies and governments. Millions would probably die just because we couldn't produce enough food or drinking water, let alone other resources.

I think I'll start doing this.

And regarding #4, I think that a phone recording audio in a shirt pocket to aid later transcription wouldn't be amiss. Maybe putting the audio up online would, but in the news/reporting field it's pretty standard practice to have audio going while interviewing.

Also, if you [have/know somone with] a fairly "official-looking" camera with an externally attachable interview-style microphone, then you can go around and do some street spots with less awkwardness. When people see somone talking to a person on the street like that, they get the impression it's one-on-one. And if you approach someone, they'll be more likely to be comfortable with an interview-style conversation.

2Raemon
This sounds accurate.

I believe we're already as smart as we need to be, so any efforts to try to increase intelligence are a waste of resources.

You'll find that this is a meme many on LW disagree with profusely.

This is receptive language versus productive language.

It's the same if you have ever tried to learn a new language. Typically you can understand much more people who are fluent speaking than you can actually say, even though when you recieve the words, you're processing them with the same brain that you produce the words with.

1scientism
But can you think fluidly in a language you can't speak fluidly? It doesn't follow from being able to understand more than you can articulate that you speak only a small fraction of the words you can think, as byrnema implies. It sounds more like the process of articulation and understanding are decoupled.

This is why learning to speed read is so difficult for me.

If I look at a word I've read and subvocalized it. I can't not read a word that I look at. I can try to ignore parsing full sentences and their relation to each other, with limited success, but not at the scale of individual words or letters.

Any Esperantists who are willing to be a conversational partner to someone just beginning to learn the language (myself)?

You've proably been in a skinner box though.

"Instant win" prizes on fast food and soft drinks.

WoW drop tables. Or basically any game where a prize or reward for victory is not guaranteed.

I took the specification of Portal to mean more highly visually disorienting games. It's why I didn't recommend Mirror's Edge. Maybe I parsed it incorrectly? If so, yes. Yes you do have a point there.

And I didn't really find it all that gripping, in the getting-addicted-to-it sense. I am generalizing from my own personal experiences here though, so I may be an outlier, where the majority of players do get sucked in?

My reasoning is more that there's no real plot. You don't need to "finish" the game, you can just play it whenever and it is just as satisfying from an entertainment standpoint.

shrugs I will take your dissent as evidence, however. I am quite new to the game.

1Halceon
Well, TF2 doesn't seem like a disorienting game per se, but the generally fast pace of the game can and probably will add to the disorientation. Personally I wouldn't call it addictive either. But from the sample of people I have around me, I'd say that games with instanced gameplay tend to take up a lot more time than expected, especially if the next round is loaded automatically. It's what I like to call the "One more level" problem. Every round is relatively short, but the number of rounds has a slight tendency to get out of hand.

For number 1, single-instance games. An RPG with 30 hours in the MAIN storyline and 100 more in optional sidequests would probably not be your ideal. But drop-in, drop-out type gaming might be better. TF2 is one I've started playing, especially since it's free. And the learning curve is fairly gentle, especially with tutorials. Find a class you like, play it until you're comfortable. Then find another. The only issue is that it would require a sufficient investment in hardware if you don't have it already.

Playing on (and joining, if you're so inclined) Kon... (read more)

0Halceon
I wouldn't recommend Team Fortress 2 to someone with problems with 3D virtual environments. Nor to someone with discipline problems.

Again, I agree... outside the bounds of this excercise.

I have absolutely no objection to any of your advice, whatsoever. It's all pretty good advice, if presented a little forcefully. But I get that sort of "tough titties, now do the work" methodology. Nor would I be making any noise if this was only an article about aspiring rationalists giving advice to other aspiring rationalists.

But it isn't.

The point is to figure out a strategy to AVOID the obstacles presented, not insist that the obstacles be removed. That way the obstacles can no longer be... (read more)

That's the dymaxion. I've never tried it myself (School/work being inflexible in hours to the degree that I wouldn't be able to nap.), but of what I've read, it's one of the most difficult to acclimate to.

One of the easier ones (or at least easier than dymaxion, maybe not as easy as biphasic, but it gets more wake-hours) is the Everyman. It's a three-hour core nap with three evenly spaced 20-minute naps during the day, with some room for flexibility.

And the basic rule from that three-and-thre model (which can get you down to biphasic, or up to the uberman) is for every hour of core you add, remove one nap. And every hour of core you remove, add a nap.

What schedule did you use? Because "polyphasic" is a catchall term for sleeping in more than one interval over the course of a 24 hour period.

Uberman, everyman, and dymaxion are the most commonly spoken of, in my experience.

0Alex_Altair
Thirty minute naps every six hours. That one didn't have too much data behind it, either.

I can only really think of specific examples to specific cases, but things that take minimal effort, yet still give fairly high returns when compared to other low-effort strategies.

If the task is "eat vegetables" and the restrictions are money, proximity to store, spoils too quickly, and no freezer, then an example of something that is NOT a FOO strategy would be to sell your property, move to or purchase a farm, start growing your own vegetables and eat those ones, while selling the excess to buy a better freezer.

Clearly, I'm using hyperbole her... (read more)

Just as an aside and a note to all giving the recommendations and advice... focus on First Order Optimal Strategies.

Sure self-editing to not have your rejections be rejections anymore, by training the habit over the course of a few months to a year or more MAY work, and may work very well. But it's not the strategy that has the lowest skill/effort input to highest power/effect output ratio.

0NancyLebovitz
What sort of strategies would you say give the best leverage?

I agree with the "you shouldn't HAVE to worry about what people think about you" mode of thought, but the point of this excercise is to treat these things as if they were the person's true rejections.

And if they are their true rejections (which they very well may be), then how is it possible to still excecute X action that they desire to, while circumventing the previously stated rejection.

Assume the LCPW where I implanted a device inside Fergus' head, which will explode if he worries about what he's signalling/what others are thinking about him/... (read more)

3BillyOblivion
I am treating it as if it's a blocker to him acting on a goal. And I never said "you shouldn't have to worry...", all I said was that letting what other people think get in the way of doing the right thing isn't very smart. Sometimes the best way to overcome a block is to just accept that things are like that and push on. The opinions of strangers is one thing that you cannot (much) influence. You should consider how you appearance and actions look to them because of things like them calling the police because you're wandering around at 2 in the morning howling along to Norwegian Death Metal, but if you just want to go trail running in a place where other kids like to pour cheap booze down their throats and start on the next generation, then just keep running.

Benefits of playing games:

  • Improved hand-eye coordination
  • Strategic puzzle solving skills
  • Decreased stress level
  • By far, more mentally engaging than television or movies, which are passive entertainment
  • introspection in choice-morality games
  • by Playing Like a Designer you can learn how to use gamelike elements in non-game environments (like the classroom) to make them more fun

See also: http://www.tastyhuman.com/10-benefits-of-playing-video-games/

Role-playing games can also have some of the same benefits (albeit much less salient) as improv theater and r... (read more)

This doesn't address the "minimal effort" issue as much as I'd like (driving to stores and buying counts as much as preparing food, as well as searching online and doing online ordering), though it is admittedly very akratic. But you seem to be of the "just balls up and do it" persuasion, so I won't object there.

Having pre-prepared eggs in the morning (instead of at lunch as others suggested), along with better meals instead at lunch seems like, well, a better idea. I think I'll start a routine of that this Sunday.

Oh, and there's a Cost... (read more)

0handoflixue
Could be exercise induced asthma. I got an inhaler for that, used it a few times, and it let me push myself to the point where I could develop actual muscles there. I can job a couple miles without problem now, and haven't used the inhaler in months. I have no clue how typical this result is, mind. I still occasionally find it implausibly successful >.>

I am learning Esperanto, from here for grammar and word-building rules, as well as using Anki cards to build vocabulary.

I'm re-reading the Sequences and using the Anki deck made for them to help internalize some of the concepts.

I'll propose an experiment:

Try falling asleep at different times, and recording your difficuly-to-get-up on some arbitrary scale. Record (approximately) how much time asleep you get along with this.

The "recommended" 8 hours may not be optimal for your physiology.

Disclaimer: Not a doctor, nor an expert in sleep, in any way... This is just from anecdotal evidence. (Girlfriend sleeps about 5-6 hours a night, and is functional. Friend can't function without sleeping 9.)

If you find an amount of sleep that is testably better than the alternatives, at least this might help.

2handoflixue
Oddly, I find 8 hours of sleep is the worst for me. I do vastly better on 6 or 10 hours of sleep. So there may be multiple optimums, and not necessarily following an intuitive pattern.

without a bunch of borderline-crazy restrictions.

As a borderline crazyperson, I take offense to this.

Load More