rela
33
11
rela has not written any posts yet.
I feel like this quote is probably intended to be a joke. But, I have to ask anyway:
I always heard this quote as "never attribute... explained by ignorance," with the moral being that ignorance is repairable, but malice is a (presumably?) permanent character trait. Is incompetence supposed to be a repairable or a permanent trait, in this phrasing?
/end randomness...
Down-voted due to political phrasing (despite shared political-party membership).
Does this mean that my art, my path, is now tainted by "male, American, middle-class, white, named Adam, human, born in 1984"? I think, in a nit-picky and causal sense, the answer is yes. The key phrase in the quote above is that this art becomes "tied into every part" of ourselves.
I think we need to remember the distinction between sex and gender. It is our identity (how we interpret our physical description and existence) that our art/path is tied to, not our physical description/existence itself. I'm glad curious brought it up, but this thread still seems to be using "sex" where it means "gender" (how we interpret our sex given social... (read more)
Out of curiosity, why 4?
As I understood this post, there is an argument that:
In general, IAWYC, but I think that we may be ignoring the fact that signal-recognition has legitimate uses. Standard example: if I read Eliezer's blog, I know in advance that he is a legitimate source of rational, logical arguments. If I read xxyy's blog (assuming this is not peer-reviewed, etc), I have no idea - given the volume of data published online - whether what I'm reading is in any way factual. Yes, I should analyze content, read reviews, and track down... (read more)
I'm not sure how ironic I should find it that my procrastination site is now actively discussing anti-procrastination methods. -rela
Most of this is part of some silly game which women play amongst themselves: some of it may be male-directed, but it's definitely a minor portion.
It is possible that I have misunderstood your comment. So, I hope that you will not mind if I reiterate in order to make sure that I have understood correctly: Women spend time on "clothing lipstick etc" primarily because they are concerned about the impression other women will form of them.
I'm afraid that any response will be purely anecdotal: but I can say that I am much more likely to shave my legs when I go to have coffee with a group of women, as compared to with a group that contains men. And I am almost certain to shave my legs before going to coffee with a man who I would be interested in dating.
Best, rela
You (A) aren't particularly a "feminist"
I feel this might be the right time to re-state the definition of feminism: "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes." (Websters)
Why isn't everyone a feminist?
No offense meant, rela
It stands to argue however that the belief in an undetectable monster or a celestial teapot on the one hand does not add to an individual's fitness while the belief in Christianity, Islam or the Jewish faith on the other hand does. Religions increase an individual's fitness by allowing for the development of groups larger then what can be evolutionary stable by sheer face to face monitoring by creating internalized restraints in their followers and thereby increasing the likelihood of sticking to a shared moral code.
Stefan:
It seems to me that you are saying:
P1) large, stable groups are good (presumably because they minimize total violence?)
P2) a large stable group can be... (read more)
Up to this point, in the thread, there have been 2 possible explanations given for why a 5-year old professional exam has different results than a current online one:
-personality changes over a long time-scale (5 years, etc)
-scoring differences between professionals and automated counters.
These two explanations seem based on the assumption that the responses given to the individual questions are only determined by the responder's "personality." That is: person A, having personality x, will always give answer a1, s.t. if A (under reliable test conditions) gives answer a2, A must not have personality x.
I've only just now tried this test, but I at least found questions where my answer could have been... (read more)