All of phaedrus's Comments + Replies

I find this paper to be a good resource to think about this subject: https://motherjones.com/files/emotional_dog_and_rational_tail.pdf

0A1987dM
You have to escape underscores by preceding them with backslashes, otherwise they're interpreted as markup for italics.
0Sniffnoy
The underscores need escaping.
phaedrus170

Weakly related epiphany: Hannibal Lector is the original prototype of an intelligence-in-a-box wanting to be let out, in "The Silence of the Lambs"

When I first watched that part where he convinces a fellow prisoner to commit suicide just by talking to them, I thought to myself, "Let's see him do it over a text-only IRC channel."

...I'm not a psychopath, I'm just very competitive.

phaedrus250

‎"We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself." --Chris Mooney

2RobinZ
I just got that one. It's a remark on bias, isn't it?
0knb
I laughed, but I wonder if he wasn't just deliberately trolling. He had that look on his face.

This reminds me of "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -- Aristotle

To me, this uses "educated" in the sense it ought to be meant.

‎"Fine phrases are the last resource of those who have run out of arguments." -- Peter Singer

0NancyLebovitz
Thank you. I know of a couple things I've changed my mind about, but I may be unusually inclined to keep track.

"If anyone is going to ask for a real-world example of someone who does not know how a light switch works, I can't provide one off the top of my head, but I'd suggest looking at this, which is even more dreadful."

--- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV9gRFv5Kgc

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." --- Aristotle

"All of us, grave or light, get our thoughts entangled in metaphors, and act fatally on the strength of them."

---George Eliot, "Middlemarch"

0Craig_Heldreth
Somebody else read the comments section in Sapolsky's New York Times op ed today. His column had a rough explanation of human oddities explained as evolutionary adaptations. link (If you sort the comments by largest approval rating there are several interesting ones.)

I just realized today why they chose the name "GATTACA" for the eponymous movie.

"He who cannot draw on three thousand years is living from hand to mouth." -- Goethe

"We live on an island surrounded by a sea of ignorance. As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance" - John Archibald Wheeler

1Morendil
That is precisely the quote I was vaguely alluding to here - thanks ever so much for pinning it down.

"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us." -- Gandalf, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

(This is not necessarily a rationalist quote, but yet, it kinda is :))

"Every conviction is a prison" ---- Nietzsche

Thanks RobinZ, The full quote is "Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to make it precise, and everything precise is so remote from everything that we normally think, that you cannot for a moment suppose that is what we really mean when we say what we think."

But the partial quote is much more crisp.

"Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to make it precise"

  • Bertrand Russell, “The Philosophy of Logical Atomism” (Part of the full sentence)
0RobinZ
Ooh, ignore my note about duplication - yours has a better citation than the previous appearance of the quote.

"I sent the club a wire stating, PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT ME AS A MEMBER."

Groucho Marx

Real men wear Pinker (on their sleeve)

phaedrus-20

The dog does eat your homework

"Meditation"

-- I think that even there, it sort of starts out as an endeavor to signal to self "non-status-seekingness". This is why I think that the "zen patriarchs" in the koan stories whoop the newbie wards and humble them initially to break down their status-seeking natures, so that they may move on to the next level of meditation where they are not competing and signaling to themselves (and other apprentices) that they are best at "not vainly scrounging to be the best".

4Richard_Kennaway
If we're going to start describing private behaviour as "signalling to oneself", then the signalling concept has been generalised to the point of vacuity.

Yep, I would say behavior that you wouldn't want others to know about, but you have to engage in anyway. Such as overeating, or purging may be.

Hi Alicorn, Thanks for the response. But if we interpret that only she is offended by it, or any nonspecified group, then I think scotherns' examples such as

""The touch of another person's skin will still be wonderfully sensuous" - you can't say that - you are discriminating against those without a sense of touch!"

also are valid. It seems to me that we have to assume that she bases her case on some sizeable homogeneous group (that gets offended). Women? - perhaps she can clarify.

2Emily
Hi phaedrus, I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're getting at. As Alicorn pointed out, when I called that phrase disparaging, I didn't mean to imply that all women would be offended by it -- just that it's very dismissive (and for that matter not really very rationally sound) to make sweeping generalisations about the way 50% of the population talk. (I'm honestly not quite sure what the original poster of that comment, which has since been deleted, even meant by it.) I'd certainly be opposed to sweeping, dismissive generalisations about people without a sense of touch as well, though I'm not sure I've ever come across one. It seems to me that you might be conflating two different arguments here: 1. We should avoid using language that excludes a group of the population when there exists a straightforward alternative. 2. We should avoid making generalisations about people based on their membership in a group sharing a single feature. I think 2 is a pretty solid, sensible rule in general, but 1 obviously carries more weight when a) the group in question is a particularly large or contextually-salient one, and b) the point can be made just as easily without marginalising people. Both a) and b) apply to the original example in the post that was being discussed. Neither are quite so readily applicable to the "no sense of touch" example that you mentioned, so personally I'd be a lot more inclined to leave that one as it is.

"There are two tragedies in life. One is not to get your heart's desire. The other is to get it."

George Bernard Shaw, "Man and Superman"

"Do you realise just how disparaging that sounds, incidentally? Because women are obviously just a homogenous bunch..."

-- The original statement is offensive to women, doesn't that also mean that you assume that women are "just a homogenous bunch"? You seem to want to homogenise women for supporting points, but consider them heterogeneous for opposing points.

1Alicorn
She didn't specify that it sounded offensive to women only, let alone to all women.