As of 2010, all forms of violence resulted in about 1.34 million deaths up from about 1 million in 1990. Suicide accounts for about 883,000, interpersonal violence for 456,000 and collective violence for 18,000.
It wanders from the original quote, but “irrationality is slow suicide” is a great connection to make. (And if you want a quote, I’m sure you can find something like that from Rand.)
But again: now you are equating irrationality with deliberate suicide.
Whether PradyumnGanesh is or isn’t (though I don’t think they are), that doesn’t change their observation that self-inflicted violence is a relatively common form of violence, at least going by fatal violence.
Great question. I believe Jack Good’s answer was his “type 2 rationality”, which implies a Bayes/non-Bayes synthesis, semiparametric statistics, and nondogmatism.
“Irrationality is intellectual violence against which the pacifism of rationality may or may not be an adequate weapon.”
Jack Good, Good Thinking, page 25.
Violence requires at least two people, you can be irrational even when you are alone.
Self-harm counts as violence too, doesn’t it? And it’s not always accidental. The analogy stands.
It’s a very noncentral example.
From Wikipedia:
Note: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence#cite_ref-Loz2012_107-1\)
So, not that noncentral.
(Although, deaths aren’t the only outcome of violence, I haven’t read the cited study and there may be a huge availability bias here.)
Also, how often are analogies backed up by statistics?
But again: now you are equating irrationality with deliberate suicide. You’re not really drawing a very strong connection here.
It wanders from the original quote, but “irrationality is slow suicide” is a great connection to make. (And if you want a quote, I’m sure you can find something like that from Rand.)
Whether PradyumnGanesh is or isn’t (though I don’t think they are), that doesn’t change their observation that self-inflicted violence is a relatively common form of violence, at least going by fatal violence.
Would you call a cutter a violent person? You wouldn’t.
What would be an adequate weapon, then? Pavlovian training to follow the rationality to the best of one’s abilities?
Great question. I believe Jack Good’s answer was his “type 2 rationality”, which implies a Bayes/non-Bayes synthesis, semiparametric statistics, and nondogmatism.