All of LuxAurumque's Comments + Replies

I think this is an incredibly interesting topic that has yet to be really deepened--for example, it's not just about how many friends/followers you have, but also about how much use you make of them. Having sample sizes of 300-400 people is enough (assuming random populations) to run some small statistical surveys about issues and ideas. A big way I've found to engage friends online is to post moderately interesting studies/articles/ideas from different areas on your own page. This allows for people who have those differing areas of interest to have a reas... (read more)

0[anonymous]
That's a neat idea, I like it.

Interesting, although I've always wondered what the value would be of preserving an older individual (I'm assuming s/he's on the old side). Maybe I'm simply not well-versed in medical advancements, but it seems the problem of reviving a cryonic (if that is the term) is a completely different problem from reversing the aging process, or in short, preventing death entirely. Of course, there could be large overlap with the advancements, just my two cents.

0thomblake
The usual assumption is that neuropreservation is just to store your information, and you won't be revived until a brand new body can be built for you. It's not so much that aging will be solved by then, as that it isn't even in the same ballpark.

The patient shouldn't be revived until both problems can be solved cheaply.

There may be some severe overlap between confirmation bias and fictional evidence generalization, but then again, the entire point of an anecdote, real or fake, is to establish something that you've already taken to be true and demonstrate it in a more accessible lens. I don't mean to say that the studies people run in addition to anecdotes have no weight, but, for the most part, when assessing a situation or a point, we tend to self-select the anecdotes most useful to whatever we originally believe, and those tend to stick with us more often than the exact studies which have actual weight in demonstrating the argument

3[anonymous]
I agree that often the point of an anecdote is to reinforce something you've taken to be true, from the teller's perspective. But from the listener's perspective, hearing an anecdote is often viewed as a way of exposing yourself to valid incoming evidence. I, along with thousands of others, willfully embrace this bad mode of reasoning often when I read Yelp reviews, for example. I think, "I wonder if Restaurant X is good... hmm... let's see what contrived, one-off experiences that others found noteworthy enough to report..." Of course, elements of Yelp can be very helpful, and to the extent that I am careful to apply filters, look at statistically common reviews, account for selection bias, and so forth, it's not that dangerous to just generalize from Yelp reviews. But just think of all that stuff I said which I need to do to ensure careful interpretation of Yelp reviews! And Yelp reviews can almost always be taken as true (or a 'true perspective' at least). Imagine how much harder that problem becomes when reading fictional sources of input. As an extreme example, I have an anecdote (har har) from my childhood about anecdotal reasoning. My dad was a corpsman in the Marines and often overestimated his own medical prowess because of his experience. Once I had to get stitches very close to the corner of my eye (from a nasty scrape during a basketball game). My dad thought the prices for "just getting stitches" were outrageous. He sought out some anecdotal opinions of the doctor and others had plenty of one-off stories about why they didn't like this particular doctor. So my dad (very incorrectly) reasoned that it was better for him to take out my stitches at home. Luckily, I wasn't injured, but my mom and dad sure had a pretty bad fight about it. Obviously, he was suffering from more severe biases than just fictional evidence, but the stories he used to justify his preferred actions were basically just embellished stories of doctor dislike. Presumably they were mo

True. It might be possible by seeing how language changes over time in comparison to what evidence of cultural change we have, but it might also be a lot of speculation. In either case though, the frame of the language still arises such that it is significantly different, and you have to work your way through the frame before you can feel comfortable communicating in the language.

Someone here will probably know this better than I do (unfortunately :( ), but I believe there have been a series of studies done on the interplay between language and culture within certain countries--that certain constructions within the language allow for the development of differing types of cultural standards. The example that is coming to my mind is a language like German when compared to English. In English, you tend to be able to interrupt people more often, because you know where a sentence is going (You can go fuck--), whereas in German (I believ... (read more)

0bramflakes
It would be difficult to separate cause and effect here. A culture where interrupting people was taboo in the first place might develop a similar syntax. Speaking of rigor, I've come to love Spanish's subjunctive mood because I can inject doubt into a statement by changing a single syllable, whereas in English I need to mess about with cumbersome disclaimers to say the same thing. Also, if I'm making a subjective value judgment, I can clearly indicate that it's a fact about me, not a fact about the world.

Do I have to take it over? Can I not just use my body of knowledge to churn out technology and Enlightened thought to (hopefully) allow humanity to skip a couple hundred years' worth of religious intolerance, and ignorance of rational thought?

Keep in mind that the authors do admit this study to be not much more than a collection of anecdotal statements. While it's certainly interesting, be wary of using these stories to generalize about Christian deconversion.

I'm not really surprised about the reasons they found--while I do not have any serious experience with Christians, I would expect their relationship with God to be treated like any other. What good is a personal relationship if it has to be intrinsically different from any other relationship you have?

It's on this kind of thought process that I have issues with statistics being used by people who don't really understand them.

I'm not trying to get on a high horse and exclaim that the common people shouldn't cite studies and stats, but if you are going to cite them, cite them fully. More often than not, by adding a standard deviation and median to an average, you get a picture much closer to what is actually occurring. But even after that, there are other tests which can yield a whole bunch of information that could be more useful towards refining the pic... (read more)

My main problem with suicide is that more often than not, rationality is not employed in the decision to commit the action. Most people who attempt suicide and fail regret the attempt almost immediately after jumping off the bridge, or taking the pills, or cutting their wrists. A depressed person is not necessarily the best, unbiased judge as to whether his life is futile.

As for the role of suicide in society, it may be an issue, but there seems to be little we can do about it. If a friend of mine comes to me saying he feels suicidal, my first call will be... (read more)