I think a lot of the benefit I’ve derived from LessWrong is subconscious in nature—rational algorythms and basic Logic 101 are such a core part of the community that you wind up adopting them on a deeper level than you do just by learning about them. “If A then B, A therefore B, B =/= A” is easy to learn − 20 minutes at most for a particularly slow student, but applying it is a whole other story.
For example, an idea recently struck me during a conversation (I plan to write a more-detailed piece for my blog about this): in regards to Iraq, the alleged WMDs were a major source of debate, they were the causus belli, and back in the winterof 2002 their non-existence would have undermined the whole war. It only took about a year or two for proof of their non-existence to appear, but the debate continued raging for another five. Proof aside, most people still believed that WMDS—or ‘something just like them’ - actually existed.
With the pro-Iraq, pro-WMD side there was always the implied caveat ”...but if I am wrong about WMDs, then I agree that the war is unjust.” Their rigorous arguments, and dismissal of the facts, only make sense if the war in Iraq was contingent on WMDs being true. Certainly, there were people like Hitchens who supported the war for other reasons—but for most people WMDs were the be-all end-all argument for the war.
Nowadays you don’t hear WMDs mentioned at all—presumably most people now accept that there were none—and yet those who believed in WMDs still support the war, or if they don’t it’s for different reasons—they aren’t against the 2002 invasion, they’re against the current situation.
Intellectual honesty on their part would require them to be against the war. Instead they a priori chose to be for the war, and WMDs were simply the argument they learned to vomit up. After that argument has been dismissed, they find other reasons to be for the war.
How does all of this relate to less wrong? Four years ago I don’t think I would have noticed this. I’d taken classes in logic at the time, and I was well aware of a fuzzy version of “Politics is the Mindkiller”—but if I’d come up with such an idea, it would have taken a week of percolation. Nowadays this idea crystallized almost instantly between sips of beer.
LessWrong is mostly my ‘play time’ - but like most forms of play… well, most forms in the evolutionary setting, anyway—it’s play that’s focussed on real-world results.
I am quantifiably smarter for all the time I waste here—calling it a software patch or upgrade is bang on.
EDIT: Just wanted to say that I might have some of my dates wrong. For my blog I’ll actually do the research so that I don’t sound like an idiot, particularly in regards to the progress of the WMD debate. I’m fairly certain the evidence will back up my thoughts on the matter, but it is possible that my annecdotes don’t reflect reality. Herp derp, probably wouldn’t have thought of that without LW either.
″...but if I am wrong about WMDs, then I agree that the war is unjust.”
Under the assumption that existence of WMDs justifies the war, the war was justified if the decision-makers believed that WMDs probably existed, as a result of a honest attempt to discern the truth. Whether WMDs actually existed is wholly irrelevant, except as evidence about state of knowledge of the decision-makers at the time.
(The decision to pull out of the war based on new evidence is a separate question, since situation is different.)
Except then you’d be right demanding they state something like “You were right, the war was unjustified; perhaps we need better monitoring of our leaders. My current stance is that the war should be continued for reasons X.”
There are smart people who held consistent pro-war opinions, granted—personally I’m trying not to take a stance on the war itself, in this situation—but the majority are chock full of cognitive dissonance.
There are certainly many problems associated with any heated debate. I only addressed one point (so your reply is not to me; at least, I didn’t understand a single point you made in it, so perhaps something in there was intended to be on the point I addressed).
This is why I need to write a proper article about this. My first post was only a short hand sketch, which now leaves me feeling like the reverse-Homer Simpson (“Sorry if it SOUNDED sarcastic).”
I think a lot of the benefit I’ve derived from LessWrong is subconscious in nature—rational algorythms and basic Logic 101 are such a core part of the community that you wind up adopting them on a deeper level than you do just by learning about them. “If A then B, A therefore B, B =/= A” is easy to learn − 20 minutes at most for a particularly slow student, but applying it is a whole other story.
For example, an idea recently struck me during a conversation (I plan to write a more-detailed piece for my blog about this): in regards to Iraq, the alleged WMDs were a major source of debate, they were the causus belli, and back in the winterof 2002 their non-existence would have undermined the whole war. It only took about a year or two for proof of their non-existence to appear, but the debate continued raging for another five. Proof aside, most people still believed that WMDS—or ‘something just like them’ - actually existed.
With the pro-Iraq, pro-WMD side there was always the implied caveat ”...but if I am wrong about WMDs, then I agree that the war is unjust.” Their rigorous arguments, and dismissal of the facts, only make sense if the war in Iraq was contingent on WMDs being true. Certainly, there were people like Hitchens who supported the war for other reasons—but for most people WMDs were the be-all end-all argument for the war.
Nowadays you don’t hear WMDs mentioned at all—presumably most people now accept that there were none—and yet those who believed in WMDs still support the war, or if they don’t it’s for different reasons—they aren’t against the 2002 invasion, they’re against the current situation.
Intellectual honesty on their part would require them to be against the war. Instead they a priori chose to be for the war, and WMDs were simply the argument they learned to vomit up. After that argument has been dismissed, they find other reasons to be for the war.
How does all of this relate to less wrong? Four years ago I don’t think I would have noticed this. I’d taken classes in logic at the time, and I was well aware of a fuzzy version of “Politics is the Mindkiller”—but if I’d come up with such an idea, it would have taken a week of percolation. Nowadays this idea crystallized almost instantly between sips of beer.
LessWrong is mostly my ‘play time’ - but like most forms of play… well, most forms in the evolutionary setting, anyway—it’s play that’s focussed on real-world results.
I am quantifiably smarter for all the time I waste here—calling it a software patch or upgrade is bang on.
EDIT: Just wanted to say that I might have some of my dates wrong. For my blog I’ll actually do the research so that I don’t sound like an idiot, particularly in regards to the progress of the WMD debate. I’m fairly certain the evidence will back up my thoughts on the matter, but it is possible that my annecdotes don’t reflect reality. Herp derp, probably wouldn’t have thought of that without LW either.
(As an out-of-context remark.)
Under the assumption that existence of WMDs justifies the war, the war was justified if the decision-makers believed that WMDs probably existed, as a result of a honest attempt to discern the truth. Whether WMDs actually existed is wholly irrelevant, except as evidence about state of knowledge of the decision-makers at the time.
(The decision to pull out of the war based on new evidence is a separate question, since situation is different.)
Except then you’d be right demanding they state something like “You were right, the war was unjustified; perhaps we need better monitoring of our leaders. My current stance is that the war should be continued for reasons X.”
There are smart people who held consistent pro-war opinions, granted—personally I’m trying not to take a stance on the war itself, in this situation—but the majority are chock full of cognitive dissonance.
There are certainly many problems associated with any heated debate. I only addressed one point (so your reply is not to me; at least, I didn’t understand a single point you made in it, so perhaps something in there was intended to be on the point I addressed).
This is why I need to write a proper article about this. My first post was only a short hand sketch, which now leaves me feeling like the reverse-Homer Simpson (“Sorry if it SOUNDED sarcastic).”
:)