I did further research after I posted the question and found this:
https://www.fanfiction.net/s/3000137/1/On-the-Wings-of-a-Phoenix
which is about Voldemort being good, and Harry being sort of neutral then converted to Voldemort's side.
But it's not the ideal of what I was looking for.
Harry Potter question:
Is there any good "Harry is evil, Voldemort is the good guy" fanfic?
That works as a neutral "let's move on". I sort of want a feeling of conceding more (but not totally) though.
Any tips on bailing out of an argument if you want to very nearly concede the whole thing without quite saying your opponent is right?
eg if you realise the whole conversation was a terrible mistake and you're totally unequipped to have the conversation, but still think you're right.
Should you just admit they're right for simplicity even if you're not quite convinced?
I state the truth: "I tend to get too attached to my opinion in live debates and want to think about your arguments in peace."
The people that get offended by this tend to be not the kind of people I want to associate with anyway.
I'm seeing the same problem in Chrome.
I did actually mean ethnic group, but now I see my typo I'm actually quite liking it this way as it's less likely to trigger real-world connotations.
Is there a name for the situation where the same piece of evidence is seen as obviously supporting their side by both sides of an argument?
eg: New statistics are published showing ethic group X is committing crimes at 10 times the rate of ethic group Y.
To one side, this is obvious evidence that ethic group X are criminals.
To another side, this is obvious evidence the justice system is biased.
Both sides are totally opposed, yet see the same fact as proving they are right.
Both sides are totally opposed, yet see the same fact as proving they are right.
If redheads are 10 times more likely to be in jail for violent crimes, it is evidence for both "redheads are violent" and "judges hate redheads" - and both might be true!
And "redheads are violent" and "judges hate redheads" are not totally opposed, they only look that way in a context where they are taken as arguments in support of broader ideologies who, them, are totally opposed (or rather, compete with each other so oppose each oth...
I used to like liferea, but I don't have an up to date opinion as I switched to non-desktop RSS reading options.
It's a little bit intuition and might turn out to be daft, but
a) I've read just enough about game theory in the past to know what the prisoner's dilemma is
b) I was reading an argument/discussion on another blog about the men chatting up women, who may or may not be interested, scenario, and various discussions on irc with MixedNuts have given me the feeling that male/female interactions (which are obviously an area of central interest to feminism) are a similar class of thing and possibly game theory will help me understand said feminism and/or opposition to it.
A word of warning: you will probably draw all sorts of wacky conclusions about human interaction when first dabbling with game theory. There is huge potential for hatching beliefs that you may later regret expressing, especially on politically-charged subjects.
My possibly crazy theory is that game theory would be a good way to understand feminism.
I hate trying to learn things from videos, but the books look interesting.
I want to know more (ie anything) about game theory. What should I read?
If you have the time, I heartily recommend Ben Polak's Introduction to Game Theory lectures. They are highly watchable and give a very solid introduction to the topic.
In terms of books, The Strategy of Conflict is the classic popular work, and it's good, but it's very much a product of its time. I imagine there are more accessible books out there. Yvain recommends The Art of Strategy, which I haven't read.
Vague stylistic thought - I don't have anything specific to base this on, but this chapter feels like something EY has been saving up, and is now throwing in as he's decided it's time to start the ending.
I think there's a related rhetorical trick that's something like redefining the applause lights, or brand extension.
Greens believe the sky is green. I want them to believe the entire world is green. I will use their commitment to sky greeness and just persuade them it means something slightly different.
Clouds are kind of like the sky so should really be considered green if you're being fair about things. And rain is in the sky, who are you to say it's not green? Rain falls on the ground, which is therefore also part of the sky.
After a while, you can persuade people that, since the sky is green, obviously rocks are green.
This explanation isn't great but more practical examples are somewhat mindkilling.
"So you also don't think it's worth the trouble of holding me responsible..."
This could be interesting depending how she reacts later. I'm mostly expecting despair, but with a small chance of a heroic Minerva.
I'd be pretty shocked if we don't see a heroic Minerva, given how she reacted to Harry's rant and the fact that this incident provided the name for the chapter.
Unlikely theory:
It's all a fake. Harry set the whole thing up with Dumbledore, then obliviated himself. The real Hermione has been spirited away somewhere she won't be in any danger. Harry relied on his own likely reaction to ensure things would occur more or less as planned.
We can keep Hermione alive yay! But it doesn't work dramatically.
Other unlikely theory:
Harry will calm down tomorrow and realise his vow was a mistake.
I kind of like this as what a saner person might do, but again it seems very unlikely within the confines of Harry and the story.
Yeah, it's mostly history, but I think even for modern philosophy it's worthwhile for background and inspiration.
For general philosophical background I'd recommend Sophie's World. It's mostly history-of-philosophy, but I think it works well as a fairly light way into the field.
I'm looking for more on the should-universe you occasionally see referenced around lesswrong.
So far all I can see is some vague references from EY (eg http://lesswrong.com/lw/2nz/less_wrong_open_thread_september_2010/2k50 )
Anyone got anything?
I stopped reading because I couldn't take the pain anymore, so I don't know.
Worse, there's a transition on the direction of dreadful writing.
I personally don't get on with Anki but there are many many positive reports.
I thought there was enough overlapping interest to be worth linking the launch. and I expect occasional posts may be interesting.
I look forward to your further posts.
my limited research on these topics has been very negative.
The writing, I agree, is pretty bad, and she has an odd obsession with trains and motors. I can just about understand the "motor" part because it allows some not very good "motor of the world" metaphors.
The appealing part is the depiction of the evil characters as endlessly dependant on the hero characters, and their view of them as an inexhaustible source of resources for whatever they want, and the rejection of this.
I like my Heinlein, but I don't see the connection.
But this doesn't seem particularly different from the ambiguity in all language. The linked site seems to suggest there's some particular lack of meaning in isolated words.
You said " Dividing by zero doesn't produce a contradiction"
Several of these links include examples of contradictions. There is no authority required.
For example:
A Contradiction. Suppose we define 1/0 = q
for some real number . Multiplying on both sides of the equation gives 1 = 0 * q = 0
which is a contradiction (to 1 and 0 being different numbers).
Sadly no-one has reported back.
I read the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand where she sets out her philosophical views.
I found them worryingly convincing. Since they're also unpleasant and widely rejected, I semi-jokingly semi-seriously want people to talk me out of them.
I initially thought she was being sarcastic. However on seeing this discussion I find the "specific subset of feelings" theory more plausible. She's rejecting the "feelings" James has.
Quoting from the linked blog:
"Assume that a stranger shouted at you "Broccoli!" Would you have any idea what he meant? You would not. If instead he shouted "I like broccoli" or "I hate broccoli" you would know immediately what he meant. But the word by itself, unless used as an answer to a question (e.g., "What vegetable would you like?"), conveys no meaning"
I don't think that's true? Surely the meaning is an attempt to bring that particular kind of cabbage to my attention, for as yet unexplained reasons.
My reaction to Rand is pretty emotional, rather than "I see why her logic is correct!", which I think justifies the motivated cognition aspect a little bit.
Not that I've seen. It'd be cool though. I think maybe you can see traces in people like Peter Watts, but if you take HPMOR as the defining example, I can't think of anything.
I've been reading Atlas Shrugged and seem to have caught a case of Randianism. Can anyone recommend treatment?
Michael Huemer explains why he isn't an Objectivist here and this blog is almost nothing but critiques of Rand's doctrines. Also, keep in mind that you are essentially asking for help engaging in motivated cognition. I'm not saying you shouldn't in this case, but don't forget that is what you are doing.
With that said, I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged. The idea that you shouldn't be ashamed for doing something awesome was (for me, at the time I read it) incredibly refreshing.
My own deconversion was prompted by realizing that Rand sucked at psychology. Most of her ideas about how humans should think and behave fail repeatedly and embarrassingly as you try to apply it to your life and the lives of those around you. In this way, the disease gradually cures itself, and you eventually feel like a fool.
It might also help to find a more powerful thing to call yourself, such as Empiricist. Seize onto the impulse that it is not virtuous to adhere to any dogma for its own sake. If part of Objectivism makes sense, and seems to work, great. Otherwise, hold nothing holy.
I am hoping for someone to write Anita Blake, Rational Vampire Hunter.
Or the rationalist True Blood (it already has "True" in the title!)
I appreciate the political, unproductive timesink problem. I'm being optimistic - one day we shall triumph and have a productive post!
I think this might be a useful strategy as part of the discussion. I'd like to cover an idea of what people actually mean, though.
I've said this before, but:
I would like a LW take on feminism, including topics like what feminists are actually doing, whether you should be one, and why.
I've seen attempts to expose LW to feminism before, but it normally seems to consist of taking existing feminist content and reposting it here - I'm thinking of a more "local" version.
I have a few objections against the way PUA and feminism are present at LW, but I think that could be fixed by presenting them in a different way.
My problem with PUA is that its discussion does not happen at a separate article, but rather as huge threads within articles about something else. So I am annoyed with the discussion being off-topic, long, repeating the same points over dozen different articles, never reaching any conclusion, threatening to happen again and again forever. Also, even the basic terms are never defined, so people just talk past each...
I realise this is not quite the point of this thread, but it is relevant:
I would like not to have any more posts on PUA or feminism. They are political, unproductive timesinks. The mutual disarmament we had after the flamewar of Summer 2009, where neither side posted, was excellent.
I've got lessdaft.com about to expire. Does anyone want it for anything?
One user who's part of the female dataset has already reported cutting out the smileys deliberately. As I say, I don't put much faith in the results.
I did consider scraping lesswrong.com for data, but a) I wasn't sure of the etiquette b) I don't have a list of female users (maybe I can get them from the survey?) c) it's a lot more coding.
The number of female users is so small I just hardcoded known female nicks.
As I say, I don't think the results are particularly meaningful.
Okay, after threatening, I had a go at hacking up a smiley gender detector for lesswrong irc.
Looking at the counts of smileys-per-message by nick, no obvious pattern.
Looking at averages:
male avg 0.015764359871 female avg 0.0194180023583
The dataset I'm using is so male dominated I don't think the results can be particularly meaningful.
we must create a smiley based gender detector! for science!
So something I've mused about before..
I think it'd be good to train yourself as an accurate reporter somehow - for example the ability to accurately summarise an article, or report on something someone said.
This is an area where I feel personally slightly weak, in that I often tend to exaggerate and use hyperbole when it's not appropriate.
I have visions of some sort of game - one person picks an article, and the other has to write an accurate summary of it, without distortion. Maybe a third person then grades the two versions? I'm not sure how to inject the fun part.
It seems likely this is already some sort of recognised writing technique, perhaps studied by journalists.
I also wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
You're right, the tvtropes article on Objectivism is actually really good. I knew they had a lot of good non-trope content.
Random idea inspired by the politics thread: Could we make a list of high quality expressions of various positions?
People who wished to better understand other views could then refer to this list for well expressed sources.
It seems like there might be some argument about who "really" understood a given point of view best, but we could resolve debates by having eg pastafarianism-mstevens for the article on pastafarianism I like best, and pastafarianism-openthreadguy for the one openthreadguy prefers.
I don't promise this will work, but I found my desire for sugar significantly reduced by trying to go cold turkey on refined sugar specifically.
It's a pain to do, because it's in an amazing variety of foods, but after a few weeks of cravings I found sugar desire decreased massively.