Thanks for this. Let me know if you have any others and I will add them to this wiki page I created: Less Wrong Canon on Rationality.
Here are some more that I already had.
I am amused by this section of Anti-Inductiveness in this context, though:
Not that this is standard terminology—but perhaps “efficient market” doesn’t convey quite the same warning as “anti-inductive”. We would appear to need stronger warnings.
Huh, lemme do it.
Schelling fence → bright-line rule
Semantic stopsign → thought-terminating cliché
Anti-inductiveness → reverse Tinkerbell effect
“0 and 1 are not probabilities” → Cromwell’s rule
Tapping out → agreeing to disagree (which sometimes confuses LWers when they take the latter literally (see last paragraph of linked comment))
ETA (edited to add) → PS (post scriptum)
That’s off the top of my head, but I think I’ve seen more.
Thanks for this. Let me know if you have any others and I will add them to this wiki page I created: Less Wrong Canon on Rationality. Here are some more that I already had.
Fallacy of gray → Continuum fallacy
Motivated skepticism → disconfirmation bias
Marginally zero-sum game → arms race
Weirdness points --> idiosyncrasy credits
Funging Against → Considering the alternative
Akrasia → Procrastination/Resistance
Belief in Belief → Self-Deception
Ugh Field ->Aversion to (I had a better fit for this but I can’t think of it now)
Thanks for the list!
I am amused by this section of Anti-Inductiveness in this context, though:
Instrumental/terminal = hypothetical/categorical
rationalist taboo = unpacking.
Instrumental and terminal are pretty common terms. I’ve seen them in philosophy and business classes.