All of matabele's Comments + Replies

matabele-30

Votes can not be counted more than once, and every vote counts (according to the voter.) As all voters have an equal opportunity to withhold or spend votes - how can this be unfair?

In current systems, a minority voter may never be offered a candidate worth a vote - all such votes don't count (according to the voter.) This is clearly unfair, and has only an appearance of proportional representation.

With the right maneuvering among a well-organized block of voters, I could imagine a situation where the system becomes a perpetual minority rule.

And this does not happen now?

This is likely the reason for low turn outs in many elections - the voters simply do not care.

1Eugene
That's just the problem. It does happen now, in a system where everyone is throttled at only one vote to spend per election. In a system where you can withhold that vote till another election, increasing the power of your vote over time, it only exacerbates this behavior. Is the better fairness on a micro level worth the trade-off of lesser fairness on a macro level?
matabele-20

... they frequently vibrate the air, radiate heat, and exude various chemicals ...

These signals appear to be unavoidable. When we lie, however, many of our behavioural signals appear to be avoidable: for example.

There is no dispute that we betray our own lies; but why do we betray our lies?

matabele-40

... Expected payoff is low in this tangent ...

Expected payoff for whom?

I am new to this forum; as far as I remember I came here via the QM sequence. I was immediately impressed by the material, and became interested in other sequences (I have a long term interest in rationality, and especially general semantics.)

In order to acquaint myself with the general gist of the forums, I made a couple of innocuous posts on this thread; to which I received this response:

... I mean it is bullshit.

I have a natural aversion to narcissistic types, and my hackles ... (read more)

5Eugine_Nier
In terms of expected utility. The QM sequence is most definitely not representative of either the sequences or the other material here. I don't know what kind of forums you're used to, but on LW non-moderators are allowed to criticize other comments and everyone is allowed to vote on them. Also one piece of advise, you may want to avoid comments like this one that are so full of jargon that nobody can tell what you're saying, but seem vaguely insulting.
matabele-20

... any rational defences are welcomed and may be appended below.

What part of that in unclear?

1wedrifid
I am finding it difficult to communicate with matabele. Expected payoff is low in this tangent. I will stop attempting.

Not everything that is faced can be changed. But nothing can be changed until it is faced.

– James Baldwin

The obscure language was likely due to the political context of the original; try substituting 'identified' for 'faced'.

0tut
Or acknowledged, or accepted. I don't see facing an issue as obscure language, but this is a good aphorism. Upvoted.
matabele-20

In the case that the second proposition (with respect QM) is irrelevant to the thread, any apparent dislike of the comment must associate to the first proposition.

... symbols (or strings of symbols) have different sense in different contexts ...

This in response to your comment:

This is an excellent quote ... I downvoted it here ...

Please elaborate.

0wedrifid
See the second set of ellipsis? Find the part that went there. That is all.
matabele-40
[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
0wedrifid
I doubt the QM reference has anything to do with the reaction to your comment. It was downvoted for persistent confusion in the thread and smug irrelevance. As for QM interpretations, that is boring and has been argued to death and is completely of-topic here. Look here for a list of subjects that have been thoroughly covered (the QM sequence) and if you must argue argue in the "the winner is many worlds" post that you'll see there. A few people will agree with you. Some may argue. Most will ignore you because it is not their responsibility.
matabele-20

I am new to LW, and I don't get it; this is supposed to be a forum promoting rationality, and anyone who dissed this comment appears to be behaving re-actively.

Any rational justifications as to why anyone would respond to the above comment are welcomed, and may be appended below.

2Shmi
It is rational to downvote comments you want to see fewer of, and your failed attempt at trolling certainly qualifies.
-2Eugine_Nier
The problem is that you seem to be underestimating the relevant inferential distance. Specifically you're using a lot of jargon in both this and the parent, and we have no idea what you're talking about.
-2Kawoomba
matabele-20

A good resource on distinctions (if you are not yet aware of it), is George Spencer-Brown's Laws of Form. These ideas are being further explored (Bricken, Awbrey), and various resources on boundary logic and differential logic, are now available on the web.

6gwern
I'm not really sure Laws of Form is a good resource, and I'm not sure it's good at all. A crazy philosophy acquaintance of mine recommended it, so I read it, and couldn't make very much of it (although I was disturbed that the author apparently thought he had proved the four-color theorem?). Searching, I got the impression that one could say of the book 'what was good in it was not original, and what was original was not good'; later I came across a post by a Haskeller/mathematician I respect implementing it in Haskell which concluded much the same thing:
matabele-10

When mapping labels (symbols) to their underlying concepts, look for the distinction, not the concept. Distinctions divide a particular perspective of the map; each side of the distinction being marked with a label. In early Greek philosophy the opposites were: love and strife (see empedocles.)

(An abstraction corresponds to a class of distinctions, where each particular distinction of the class, corresponds to another abstraction.)

0DaFranker
Oh! That makes a lot more sense. It doesn't seem like the most reliable technique, but this particular term is now a lot clearer. Thanks! Of course, this seems to me like 'Love' is then merely a general "Interface Method", to be implemented depending on the Class in whatever manner, in context, will go against strife and/or promote well-being of cared-for others. Which is indeed not something real, but a simple part of a larger utility function, in a sense.
-2matabele
I am new to LW, and I don't get it; this is supposed to be a forum promoting rationality, and anyone who dissed this comment appears to be behaving re-actively. Any rational justifications as to why anyone would respond to the above comment are welcomed, and may be appended below.
6DaFranker
It is not a lack of sophistication to fail to immediately grasp and assume-true one single subtle undermeaning/interpretation of a vague statement. It is rational prudence. It is the wilful, deliberate, careful act of steeling one's mind to the resolute knowledge that things are uncertain, and of not seeing patterns where there merely might be, of not projecting meanings onto phrases where meanings are in the mind, of applying what is learned and trained and practiced here on LessWrong. Or, it might also simply indicate the lack of social training towards guessing passwords.

Another Goethe quote, whilst on that tack; seems appropriate for disciples of GS.

Love is an ideal thing, marriage a real thing; a confusion of the real with the ideal never goes unpunished.

-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

4DaFranker
There's one (okay, more like 1.6) major problem with that quote, everything else being otherwise good: The implicitly absolute categorization of "love" as "ideal", and the likewise-implicit (sneaky?) connotation that love is not as real as it is ideal or marriage as ideal as it is real. Love is a very real thing. There are very real, natural, empirically-observable and testable things happening for whatever someone identifies as "love". However, further discussion is problematic, as "love" has become such a wide-reaching symbol that it becomes almost essential to specify just what interpretation, definition or sub-element of "love" we're talking about in most contexts if ambiguity is to be avoided.

Men show their characters in nothing more clearly than in what they think laughable.

-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

(re-posted on request.)

matabele-10

Men show their characters in nothing more clearly than in what they think laughable.

-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

1wedrifid
This is an excellent quote and belongs at the top level. (I downvoted it here because the point you are trying to make by replying with it is approximately backwards. An intended insult which would make more sense as a compliment.)
matabele-40

... intentionally vague deep sounding ... (symbols) ... to which wisdom can be associated. You've just given multiple meanings to the same ... (symbols) ... Those other meanings may be useful but the ... (symbols) ... themselves are nonsense.

That pretty much describes any proposition. If you wish, substitute the word 'noise' for the word 'symbol, then the paragraph describes an utterance.

There is a good resource on semiotics here.

2wedrifid
No it doesn't. Not all propositions are intentionally vague and deep sounding. Were I inclined to substitute in 'noise' it would be as a contrast to 'signal'.
matabele-40

Not necessarily deep; a couple of concrete interpretations:

'Do not let what you can not do, interfere with what you can do;' and 'If you wish to discover the unknown, begin by exploring what is known.'

There is often much hidden wisdom in interpretation of aphorisms, which perhaps explains my preference for the poetic turn of phrase.

8wedrifid
No, there are intentionally vague deep sounding comments to which wisdom can be associated. You've just given multiple meanings to the same words. Those other meanings may be useful but the words themselves are nonsense.

There are numerous systems of verifiable secret ballot, for example this one.

Why should those whom are not 'fans' of any current member of the ruling regime, never be offered a meaningful vote? That is the point of non expiring votes, that minorities will have representation at least some of the time. The fundamental test of any democracy, is whether the incumbent regime can be peacefully overthrown.

matabele-20

If you wish to advance into the infinite, explore the finite in all directions.

-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

wedrifid100

If you wish to advance into the infinite, explore the finite in all directions.

That sounds incredibly deep. (By which I mean it is bullshit.)

You were likely referring to some of the recent work of Vincent Courtillot. A video summarizing some of his work here.

The most interesting aspect of this work, is that Courtillot did not start out with any intention of finding correlations with climate; his field is geomagnetism. Only after noticing certain correlations between geomagnetic cycles and sun spot cycles, did suspected correlations with natural climate cycles become evident.

On the basis that if one makes definite assertions, responses are more likely :-)

My question: Why is it an evolutionary advantage to betray our lies with behavioural clues? Until challenged with an alternative reason that makes any sense, my assertion remains the only possible reason.

3TheOtherDave
I notice that when mammals hide from predators, or stealthily approach prey, they frequently betray their location and presence. For example, they frequently vibrate the air, radiate heat, and exude various chemicals, which some animals can sense. To ask why it's an evolutionary advantage to betray our location with such cues is to ask a question so wrong that the attempt to answer it will systematically lead me away from understanding what's going on. Now, it may be that lying is not analogous; that there really is a selected-for predisposition to be caught out in our lies, as you imply with your question. And if so, asking where that selection pressure comes from is a useful question. But that's a significant "if."
0VincentYu
Those who are unable to lie (e.g., because of involuntary behavioral cues) can credibly signal when they are telling the truth (through a lack of those involuntary cues); those who are good liars have no such credible signal. Related.

However, if we can't trust our belief-forming faculties to tell us the truth about God, why should we trust them to tell us the truth about anything, including evolutionary science? If our cognitive faculties only tell us what we need to survive, not what is true, why trust them about anything at all?

Rewrite the paragraph; but remove all unnecessary particulars and emotive words, leaving the propositions in the abstract:

... if we can't trust our beliefs ... to tell us the truth ... why should we trust them to tell us the truth ...? ... If our cognitiv

... (read more)
matabele-20

To lie convincingly, it is necessary to first believe the lie yourself; in other words once you deceive yourself, convincing others is easy. The reason for this phenomenon appears to be the behavioral clues offered when one knowingly lies. Why is it that we offer these behavioral clues when we lie? Surely it would be advantageous to disguise our lies?

The only possible reason appears to be, that these behavioral clues are the only way we have of knowing of ourselves, that we lie. Without this metaphorical 'crossing of fingers', we would have no way of knowi... (read more)

2ViEtArmis
I don't buy that lying requires believing the lies even a little bit. Internalization may be important, but understanding religious thought and being able to speak about it convincingly doesn't require belief by any means. It seems transparent that bad liars are exhibiting stress tics rather than trying to protect their internal narrative given the techniques for becoming a better liar (i.e. relax, practice, be confident) and the similarity to nervous people telling the truth when they're worried they'll get in trouble for it anyways (in the face of interrogation, for instance).
4TheOtherDave
Wait, what? On what basis do you infer that this is the only possible reason?

It would appear that many of these problems would be circumnavigated, if voters were permitted to save their votes. In the case that none of the candidates were to my liking, I could then save up my vote for any forthcoming election. When, after a 50 years of waiting, I am finally offered a candidate of my liking, I may then have an opportunity to spend all 50 of my votes at once (great for minorities who are never offered a meaningful choice.)

A system based upon non expiring votes would likely be sufficiently unpredictable to discourage strategic voting (... (read more)

0Eugene
One problem with this system is that it can violate the "non-dictatorship" criteria for fairness, since a single voter (or small group of allied voters) could strategically withhold votes during potential landslide elections and spend them during close elections. With the right maneuvering among a well-organized block of voters, I could imagine a situation where the system becomes a perpetual minority rule.
0Strange7
Downside is there would be a lot more bookkeeping involved, and a powerful incentive to compromise the secret ballot. Someone with a lot of "none of the above" votes saved up is obviously not a fan of the current government, and willing to stockpile resources toward an attempt to overthrow it, but has no actual elected representatives in that government. If some legislator proposed a program to monitor potential domestic terrorists with a level of scrutiny proportional to the cube of the suspect's reserved votes, who would oppose that program?
[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
2Vaniver
Consider Eisenhower: Other humans must be interacted with in real-time. Consider a non-military analogy: a good comeback confidently issued now is better than a perfect comeback issued next week. It also works for computing. Consider languages which have a REPL to those that don't: for many applications, good code executed now is better than perfect code executed next week. This is often because requirements change over time, and the future cannot be predicted- the customers won't know what module they want next until they've used the current module.

Interesting that you should prefer 'they', referring to the plural data; some versions of the aphorism also use this form - in retrospect, I prefer this form.

Torturing data is a common problem in my field (geophysics). With large but sparse datasets, data can be manipulated to mean almost anything. Normal procedure: first make a reasonable model for the given context; then make a measureable prediction based upon your model; then collect an appropriate dataset by 'tuning' your measuring apparatus to the model; then process your data in a standard way. In t... (read more)

0A1987dM
What I was thinking about when typing that was indeed a model by some geophysicists. They had found some kind of correlation between some function of solar activity and some function of seismic activity, but those functions were so unnatural-looking that I couldn't help thinking they tweaked the crap out of everything before getting a strong-enough result.

A perennial favourite: "If you torture the data enough, they will confess."

Often attributed to Ronald Coase, however this version was likely: "If you torture the data long enough, nature will confess" - perhaps implying a confession of truth. Another version, attributed to Paolo Magrassi: "If you torture the data enough, it will confess anything" - perhaps implying a confession of falsehood.

Personally, I find the ambiguous version of greater interest.

-1A1987dM
But if you torture them too long, they will confess falsehoods.