Many would consider ‘naive’ to be more negative than ‘insane’. For many social roles ‘naive’ is a weakness and far worse than the right kind of insane.
If someone’s ignorant in regards to the history of Mesoamerican history, or nuclear physics, or hydromechanics, that doesn’t mean they’re irrational/insane towards it.
Ignorance has nothing to do with how the word “insane” has been typically used in Less Wrong. It’s been typically used to refer to people whose minds don’t properly handle information about reality and/or make counterproductive decisions even though they have the information they require to not do so.
Indeed if someone’s merely ignorant, and that’s why they don’t make the optimal decisions, that’s a vastly smaller problem than when they have all the required information and still make insane decisions.
Perfectly good word: “ignorant”.
I thought he wanted something without a negative connotation.
Naive?
Many would consider ‘naive’ to be more negative than ‘insane’. For many social roles ‘naive’ is a weakness and far worse than the right kind of insane.
Not knowing things is bad. I don’t think there should be a non-negative word that excuses insanity by lack of knowledge.
Yeah, but if people actually start using the word “unsane”, then I expect it to acquire a negative connotation quite rapidly.
Hence my suggestion of “untaught”.
If someone’s ignorant in regards to the history of Mesoamerican history, or nuclear physics, or hydromechanics, that doesn’t mean they’re irrational/insane towards it.
Ignorance has nothing to do with how the word “insane” has been typically used in Less Wrong. It’s been typically used to refer to people whose minds don’t properly handle information about reality and/or make counterproductive decisions even though they have the information they require to not do so.
Indeed if someone’s merely ignorant, and that’s why they don’t make the optimal decisions, that’s a vastly smaller problem than when they have all the required information and still make insane decisions.