ETA: Here’s a lot of fancy words and mathy shit: http://www.necsi.edu/research/multiscale/ . I don’t know how to read it but I do know that it agrees with my preconceptions, and whenever my intuition and Greek symbols align I know I’m right. It’s like astrology but better.
Whatever you’re trying to say, you aren’t helping it by your presentation. I mean:
Bam, Greek symbols and Nature, can’t argue with that.
Ordinarily that would be a rhetorical way of saying that you can and do argue with it (as do the authors of the paper that that was a response to), but you seem to be citing it in support of your previous comment. So, what is your actual point?
Eh, sorta. (Voted up.) But I think the psychology is somewhat different. It’s like, “I’m going to be explicit about what signalling games I am participating in so that when you have contempt for me when I explicitly engage in them I get to feel self-righteous for a few seconds because I know that you are being hypocritical”. On the virtuous side, making things explicit is important for good accounting. Ideally I’d like to make it easier for me to be damned when I am truly unjustified. (I just wish there were wiser judges, better institutions than the ones I currently have access to.)
Wow, it’s been a long time since someone chided me for pointing out the obvious! Heh. Point taken. (Sorry about editing after the fact, this almost never causes problems and is pretty useful but it does blow up once every 100 comments or so.)
After your edits: Do you have a problem with my question? It was clear and straightforward- I wanted to know what was new in the paper you linked. I was not trying to start some kind of status battle with you. I was not signaling anything. You indicated you had reason to believe previous findings on group selection were wrong- I asked you to explain the argument and you responded with what looks like rudeness and sarcasm. I don’t know if you were intending to direct that rudeness and sarcasm at me or if you’re just on a 48 hour Adderall binge. Either way, I suggest you take a nap.
It wasn’t directed at you at all; my sincere apologies for not making that clear. I don’t have a problem with your question. It was more like “ahhhh, despair, it would take me at least two minutes to think about how to paraphrase the relevant arguments, but I don’t have energy to do that, but I do want to somehow signal that it’s not just tired old group selection arguments because I don’t want NECSI to have been done injustice by my unwillingness to explain their ideas, but if I do that kind of signalling then I’m participating in a game that is plausibly in the reference class of propping up decision policies that are suboptimal, so I’ll just do it in a really weird way that is really discreditable so that I can get out of this double bind while still being able to say in retrospect that on some twisted level I at least tried to do the right thing.” ETA: Well, the double negative version of that which involves lots of fear of bad things, not desire for good things. I am not virtuous and have nothing to be humble about.
This is what Eliezer’s talking about in HP:MoR with:
And he told me then that by the time good and moral people were done tying themselves up in knots, what they usually did was nothing; or, if they did act, you could hardly tell them apart from the people called bad.
I wish Dumbledore were made a steel man so he could give good counterarguments here rather than letting Harry win outright.
Huh? But, like, spatial patterns and shit. Okay, I’ll find something prestigious or something. Here’s a nice short position piece: http://www.necsi.edu/research/evoeco/nature08809_proof1.pdf Bam, Greek symbols and Nature, can’t argue with that.
ETA: Here’s a lot of fancy words and mathy shit: http://www.necsi.edu/research/multiscale/ . I don’t know how to read it but I do know that it agrees with my preconceptions, and whenever my intuition and Greek symbols align I know I’m right. It’s like astrology but better.
ETA2: Delicious pretty graphs and more Greek shit: http://www.necsi.edu/research/multiscale/PhysRevE_70_066115.pdf . Nothing to do with evolution but it’s so impressive looking that it doesn’t matter, right?
Whatever you’re trying to say, you aren’t helping it by your presentation. I mean:
Ordinarily that would be a rhetorical way of saying that you can and do argue with it (as do the authors of the paper that that was a response to), but you seem to be citing it in support of your previous comment. So, what is your actual point?
He knows, he’s Bruceing with his presentation.
Eh, sorta. (Voted up.) But I think the psychology is somewhat different. It’s like, “I’m going to be explicit about what signalling games I am participating in so that when you have contempt for me when I explicitly engage in them I get to feel self-righteous for a few seconds because I know that you are being hypocritical”. On the virtuous side, making things explicit is important for good accounting. Ideally I’d like to make it easier for me to be damned when I am truly unjustified. (I just wish there were wiser judges, better institutions than the ones I currently have access to.)
This comment exemplifies itself.
I see what you did there.
ETA: you didn’t need to edit to add “This comment exemplifies itself.”
Wow, it’s been a long time since someone chided me for pointing out the obvious! Heh. Point taken. (Sorry about editing after the fact, this almost never causes problems and is pretty useful but it does blow up once every 100 comments or so.)
I wasn’t chiding, only trying to prevent my comment from looking stupid.
After your edits: Do you have a problem with my question? It was clear and straightforward- I wanted to know what was new in the paper you linked. I was not trying to start some kind of status battle with you. I was not signaling anything. You indicated you had reason to believe previous findings on group selection were wrong- I asked you to explain the argument and you responded with what looks like rudeness and sarcasm. I don’t know if you were intending to direct that rudeness and sarcasm at me or if you’re just on a 48 hour Adderall binge. Either way, I suggest you take a nap.
It wasn’t directed at you at all; my sincere apologies for not making that clear. I don’t have a problem with your question. It was more like “ahhhh, despair, it would take me at least two minutes to think about how to paraphrase the relevant arguments, but I don’t have energy to do that, but I do want to somehow signal that it’s not just tired old group selection arguments because I don’t want NECSI to have been done injustice by my unwillingness to explain their ideas, but if I do that kind of signalling then I’m participating in a game that is plausibly in the reference class of propping up decision policies that are suboptimal, so I’ll just do it in a really weird way that is really discreditable so that I can get out of this double bind while still being able to say in retrospect that on some twisted level I at least tried to do the right thing.” ETA: Well, the double negative version of that which involves lots of fear of bad things, not desire for good things. I am not virtuous and have nothing to be humble about.
This is what Eliezer’s talking about in HP:MoR with:
I wish Dumbledore were made a steel man so he could give good counterarguments here rather than letting Harry win outright.
No need to dig up more sources- I just don’t know what the “spatial patterns and shit” means.