All of HNX's Comments + Replies

HNX30

A bit of a pushback, if I may: confirmation bias/motivated reasoning themselves only arise because of an inherent, deep-seated, [fairly likely] genetically conditioned, if not unconscious sense that:

A. there is, in fact, a single source of ground truth even, if not especially, outside of regular, axiomatic, bottom-up, abstract, formalized representation: be it math [+] or politics [-]

B. it is, in fact, both viable and desirable, to affiliate yourself with any one/number of groups, whose culture/perspective/approach/outlook must fully represent the A: inste... (read more)

HNX10

Appreciated: both footnote [corrected] and bluntness-wise. The whole post came out of somewhat of a hydraulic press for me, so that statement [among others] seems quite fitting. Might end up rewriting or heavily editing a few portions here and there in the future, though. For now, I definitely need a break and some time to recharge. One week of back and forth in order to compile and structure it all was enough.

1Seth Herd
We know well enough what people mean by "world" - the stuff they care about. The fact that physics keeps on happening if humanity is snuffed out is no comfort at all to me or to most humans. Arguing epistemology is not going to prevent a nuclear apocalypse or us being wiped out by the new intelligent species we are inventing. The fact that you don't know what's happening on the other side of the world has no bearing on existential dangers facing those people. That's what I mean by saving the world, and I expect what the author meant. This is a different thing than just helping people by your own values and estimates. I very much agree that pithy mysterious statements for others to argue over is not a good use of the quick takes here.
4ABlue
I read this paragraph as saying ~the same thing as the original post in a different tone
HNX10

Fair point. Didn't think it through that much when I first drafted it. Still, multiplication has its time and place - at least for a portion of them.

You can categorize an "idea", broadly speaking, into one of the two: a one-off change in state (e.g. any project), or a repeated execution of a particular behavior (e.g. building a new habit).

For a project, addition may be more suitable. Could you say the same about habits, though?

HNX10

Semantics. What do we, or they, or you, or me, mean when we talk about "happiness"?

For some (hedonists), it is the same as "pleasure". Perhaps, a bit drawn out in time: as in the process of performing bed gymnastics with a sufficiently attractive member of the opposite sex - not a moment after eating a single candy.

For others, it's the "thrill" of the chase, of the hunt, of the "win".

For others still: a sense of meaningful progress.

The way you've phrased the question, seems to me, disregards a handful of all the possible interpretations in favor of a much ... (read more)

HNX65

[1] Can't they both be not objective? Why make it a point of one or the other? A bit of a false dichotomy, there. 

[2] There is no single "Internet" - there are specific spaces, forums, communities, blogs, you name it; comprising it. Each has its own, subjective, irrational, moderated (whether by a single individual, a team, or an overall sentiment of the community: promoting/exalting/hyping one subset of topics while ignoring others) mini/sub-culture. 

This last one, furthermore, necessarily only happens to care about its own specific niche; happi... (read more)

Answer by HNX72

Not from the US either. I'd be far too biased if I were to express my personal stance, as well. Yet as far as irrationality goes, a few things stand out:

  1. To quote Eliezer himself: politics is the mind killer. Even more so, when the general population doesn't seem to be either aware of, or particularly concerned with, the ease it is swept by the tidal waves of their respective tribal call to arms with.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9weLK2AJ9JEt2Tt8f/politics-is-the-mind-killer

  1. For a rather substantial portion of it (at least, to an outsider's perspecti
... (read more)
1Pazzaz
I think one thing you're missing is the huge right-wing media ecosystem, the part of the "machine" that supports Trump, even spreading lies to support him. Take for example the court case Dominion v. Fox which showed pretty clearly that Fox News is willing to broadcast statements they know are false, as long as it's what their audience wants to hear (i.e. they're audience captured). Fox News is one of the largest media networks in the US and when Trump and his attorneys said the election was stolen, and Fox News knew it wasn't stolen, they still said it was stolen.
2k64
I really like the framing of establishment/anti-establishment.  I think that there are a lot of people who weren't on those sides who got pulled into one side or the other because of their left/right affiliation, but I think that is a really good explanation of the "core" appeal - the one that was there in the 2016 primaries.  It would also explain why I reject Trump.  I'm not anti-establishment or discontent.  I am generally trusting and not suspicious of others.  Combine that with my education level, and the "Big brother is out to get us" shtick Trump gives in his rambling style was never going to appeal to me.