Robin Hanson would probably argue that people have extreme ideas about the future, and that it goes both ways and you’re just reversing the stupidity. (I would disagree.)
I don’t understand?
Different epistemic origins. I imagine that a lot of LW users come to rationalism through Traditional Rationality as students or professionals. I’m young and I cut my teeth on Robert Freitas’s work. I’ve had the transhumanist inside view for a long time and don’t remember what it’s like to think about transhumanism or the future solely in terms of imprecise, surface-level generalizations.
Just like most people, I got introduced to LW through Traditional Rationality myself. But, to me, “LWian ‘rationality’” doesn’t actually have a large “usefulness delta” over “account for cognitive biases and use statistical reasoning” without the parts about extremely strong naturalism, Fun Theory, and at least enough transhumanism to make the Fun Theory actually go.
Discussing x-risks is more important/higher impact than discussing fun maximization.
I didn’t even mean existential risks. I meant stuff like, “Which people in government or business are conspiring against me this week?” and “Is everyone a piece of shit?”, to which there are actually trivial answers like “Most people aren’t conspiring against you” and “No”.
Discussing x-risks pattern matches to appearing responsible, and discussing very long-term fun maximization pattern matches to fantasizing, and appearing responsible is higher status than appearing to fantasize.
Just like most people, I got introduced to LW through Traditional Rationality myself. But, to me, “LWian ‘rationality’” doesn’t actually have a large “usefulness delta” over “account for cognitive biases and use statistical reasoning” without the parts about extremely strong naturalism, Fun Theory, and at least enough transhumanism to make the Fun Theory actually go.
I would definitely include the stuff on philosophy of language as well. I’ve seen a lot of people report that not going in circles over word usage was one of their most significant changes in behavior after reading LW. It also sets you up for reductionism by teaching you not to confuse the way the map feels with the way the territory is.
You mean there are people to whom that’s not just obvious? I thought that treating words as pointers was something common to everyone who learns programming.
Not everyone learns programming and it happens often that skills learned in one domain don’t transfer into other domains.
Quite a lot of people care about whether or not someone is a feminist. The care about defining what true feminism is about. They treat the word like it’s important in itself and not just a pointer.
Law (especially private law) seems to be a better example of a domain where words themselves are very important, because it can hardly be any other way. For example, whether or not something qualifies as a breach of contract is important by itself.
Quite a lot of people care about whether or not someone is a feminist. The care about defining what true feminism is about. They treat the word like it’s important in itself and not just a pointer.
I don’t understand?
Just like most people, I got introduced to LW through Traditional Rationality myself. But, to me, “LWian ‘rationality’” doesn’t actually have a large “usefulness delta” over “account for cognitive biases and use statistical reasoning” without the parts about extremely strong naturalism, Fun Theory, and at least enough transhumanism to make the Fun Theory actually go.
I didn’t even mean existential risks. I meant stuff like, “Which people in government or business are conspiring against me this week?” and “Is everyone a piece of shit?”, to which there are actually trivial answers like “Most people aren’t conspiring against you” and “No”.
That would be typical Very Serious Person stuff.
I would definitely include the stuff on philosophy of language as well. I’ve seen a lot of people report that not going in circles over word usage was one of their most significant changes in behavior after reading LW. It also sets you up for reductionism by teaching you not to confuse the way the map feels with the way the territory is.
You mean there are people to whom that’s not just obvious? I thought that treating words as pointers was something common to everyone who learns programming.
Not everyone learns programming and it happens often that skills learned in one domain don’t transfer into other domains.
Quite a lot of people care about whether or not someone is a feminist. The care about defining what true feminism is about. They treat the word like it’s important in itself and not just a pointer.
Law (especially private law) seems to be a better example of a domain where words themselves are very important, because it can hardly be any other way. For example, whether or not something qualifies as a breach of contract is important by itself.
On this site?
And they’re being silly.
Just like we have a few theists on LW we also have noncoders ;)