If we here can’t do better than that, then this whole rationality discussion we’ve been having comes to no more than how we can best get out of bed in the morning, solve a puzzle set by a powerful superintelligence in the afternoon, and get laid in the evening.
Sounds like good work if you can get it. ;-)
More seriously, though, if you can’t handle the getting out of bed part, it seems like taking on much bigger tasks might be off the agenda. And if more people were getting laid in the evening, we might have less violent conflict in the world.
But I’m definitely with you on the superintelligence puzzle solving being a bit less important. ;-)
There has to be a way for rationalists to talk about it and actually make a difference. Before we start to talk about specific ideas to do with what one does in order to change or save the world, what traps can we defuse in advance?
The first trap is assuming that having good ideas or being able to talk about them has anything to do with getting others to go along with them. For that, you need to be able to understand and expect to deal with irrational hidden agendas, not open rational discussion. If you can’t deal with the former, the latter isn’t going to help much.
Sounds like good work if you can get it. ;-)
More seriously, though, if you can’t handle the getting out of bed part, it seems like taking on much bigger tasks might be off the agenda. And if more people were getting laid in the evening, we might have less violent conflict in the world.
But I’m definitely with you on the superintelligence puzzle solving being a bit less important. ;-)
The first trap is assuming that having good ideas or being able to talk about them has anything to do with getting others to go along with them. For that, you need to be able to understand and expect to deal with irrational hidden agendas, not open rational discussion. If you can’t deal with the former, the latter isn’t going to help much.