DM me anything
I’m nerveWrangler on discord
LVSN
Karma: 168
Your group’s collective belief or disbelief in correction is self-fulfilling prophecy.
I will withdraw my downvote when you convince me this was not posted in bad faith.
It is possible that you wanted to say whatever it would take to make the audience reconsider previously unquestioned assumptions so that they will not be misled, which is an impulse I admire. After all, it is pointless to complain that you acted with propriety if in the end you are misled. I just don’t think the implicature here is actually leading (the opposite of misleading).
When you say “all else should stay firm belief” do you mean “all else should be regarded as belief”? Also, was the word ‘firm’ in ‘firm belief’ playing any role there or can I just get rid of it?
I think all propositions should be subject to tests whether they are regarded as knowledge or belief.
Ah, the sexual needs of one outweigh the safety needs of many.
What a strawman. Had you simply said that I was not seriously contending with safety, that would be fine.
An environment where people cannot express love for fear of censure is not safe by any non-puritan, non-culture-of-fear conception.
Feature suggestion: Luigi-vote vs Waluigi-vote buttons. Too many people downvote not because the content is bad but simply because it’s wa.
… Actually, I guess people would just downvote and wa-vote. Problem not solved.
k was I downvoted for being too Waluigi or did I do something wrong
What is ‘knowing’? This is not an arbitrary question. They say that curiosity is wanting to know. Making new considerations makes you more efficient. Someone who wants to become more efficient will therefor look for new considerations and behave as if curious.
Bayesians appear to perform well epistemically, allegedly because they feel a desire to know; because they feel curiosity. But I expect Bayesians would perform just as well if not better if they desired to be efficient, which, again, will look approximately identical to curiosity.
Another type of reasoner may desire to get closer to omniscience. Omniscience means having awareness of all information.
If you admit you are not omniscient about a question, then you admit there is more information that could shift your belief, which would make you more efficient.
Yet those who allegedly desire to know seemingly claim to often know the correct answers to questions even when they are not omniscient about those questions. What could they mean by ‘know’? Are they wrong that they know? Do they have sufficient semiscience in some sense? How could sufficient-semiscience-for-knowledge be defined in a way that can’t be gamed?
I suspect there is no such ungameable definition. If there is no ungameable definition, then it would seem ‘desire to know’ is also gameable if it does not mean ‘desire to consider everything’ (become omniscient).
could you just format this post a bit better lol
Very excited for there to be definitely no differences between stereotypical malefactors and actual malefactors; no differences between stereotypical maleficence and actual maleficence; very excited for there to be no gameable cultural impressions about what makes a person a probable malefactor
… Not to imply that any gaming that would take place would be intentional, of course.
This isn’t to say no coordination happens. I expect a little coordination happens openly, through prosocial slogans, just to overcome free rider problems. Remember Trivers’ theory of self-deception – that if something is advantageous to us, we naturally and unconsciously make up explanations for why it’s a good prosocial policy, and then genuinely believe those explanations. If you are rich and want to oppress the poor, you can come up with some philosophy of trickle-down or whatever that makes it sound good. Then you can talk about it with other rich people openly, no secret organizations in smoke-filled rooms necessary, and set up think tanks together. If you’re in the patriarchy, you can push nice-sounding things about gender roles and family values. There is no secret layer beneath the public layer – no smoke-filled room where the rich people get together and say “Let’s push prosocial slogans about rising tides, so that secretly we can dominate everything”. It all happens naturally under the hood, and the Basic Argument isn’t violated.”
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/01/14/too-many-people-dare-call-it-conspiracy/
In my draft response, now deleted, I laid out an explanation of each part but the explanations basically sounded to me like almost-exact repetition of what I said; help me out here
Won’t downvote, and also, upvoting until 6 karma.
Debate me in private and at least one of us will give the other much information that the other has not considered, I expect.
Why in private? Well I don’t on average want to pollute the public half of LessWrong with defense of political non-neutrality; that would not help the community. In the context that I have done so, the relevance was sufficiently great.
Yep!
DM me for my discord and I will send you my first comment draft for this post, containing my thoughts on Chesterton-Schelling deontology and on rules generally. I spent a good 9 hours writing it and it’s very verbose and dramatically non-metacontrarian; it would get downvoted to hell for pretentiousness and I might wake up tomorrow largely in disagreement with it.
Of course, the father does not love every part of the child; he loves the good and innocent neutral parts of the child; he does not love the antisemitism of the child. The father may be tempted to say that the child is the good and innocent neutral brain parts that are sharing a brain with the evil parts. This maneuver of framing might work on the child.
How convenient that the love which drives out antisemitism is “mature” rather than immature, when adults are the ones who invite antisemitism through cynical demagogic political thought. Cynical demagogic hypotheses do not occur to children undisturbed by adults. The more realistic scenario here is that the father is the antisemite. If the child is lucky enough to arm themself with philosophy, they will be the one with the opportunity to show their good friendship to their father by saving his good parts from his bad parts.
But the father has had more time to develop an identity. Maybe he feels by now that antisemitism is a part of his natural, authentic, true self. Had he held tight to the virtues of children while he was a child, such as the absence of cynical demagoguery, he would not have to choose between natural authenticity and morality.
I don’t want a god that loves humanity. I want a god that loves the good parts of humanity. Antisemitism is a part of humanity and I hate it and I prescribe hating it.
Debate is also inefficient: for example, if the “defense” in the court variant happens to find evidence or arguments that would benefit the “prosecution”, the defense has no incentive to report it to the court, and there’s no guarantee that the prosecution will independently find it themselves.
Reporting such evidence will make you exceptional among people who typically hold the defense position; it will no longer be fair for people to say of them “well of course the defense would say that either way”. And while you may care very much about the conclusion of the debate, you may also expect so strongly that reality will vindicate you that sharing such “harmful” information will bring you no harm.
If my faction is trying to get Society to adopt beliefs that benefit our faction onto the shared map, someone who comes to us role-playing being on our side, but who is actually trying to stop us from adding our beliefs to the shared map just because they think our beliefs don’t reflect the territory, isn’t a friend; they’re a double agent, an enemy pretending to be a friend, which is worse than the honest enemy we expect to face before the judge in the debate hall.
But you’d only want to be on the side that you’re on, I hope, because you believed it was The Good Side. Above all, the most important side I want to take over all conflicts is the good side. I think almost everyone would agree on that even if they had not been thinking of it in advance. Those who think they don’t want to be on the side of good are defining ‘good’ without respect for the reflective equilibrium of all their memories, I expect.
A good friend might in fact pretend to be on what you have designated as your nominal side so that they can bring you closer to the good side. If your sincerely joined nominal side is opposed to good then you are worse at being a friend to yourself than someone who is trying to bring you to the good side.
You should not argue for that which you do not understand in the first place as though you understood it.
I think I am a very odd member of the rationalist community; it would not make sense to take me as a representative. Many people here would probably be comfortable saying they understand Bayesianism after a typical explanation and I would have to disagree with them about that, little high-standards weirdo that I am.
I’m sorry that you feel like I was making any of my responses at your expense; I don’t want you to lose, and by helping each other make considerations not made before I believe we are helping each other win.
Then my argument that “NOT including Dirichlet is wrong” must have been wrong?
It could be right, actually. The only objection I made was in response to your objection to using personal experience, and I only talked about my intuition rather than what must or must not be the case.
Or else, why are you mentioning that no one taught you to your own satisfaction?
You seem to want to proselytize better epistemic methods, and I am telling you what I need from you in order to adopt or reject your advised methods from an engineering angle (which I regard as superior); until then I can only follow clues of lesser quality (such as the correlation between caring about misleadingness and tendency to say things that impress me as insightful); the detective angle.
Feeling like you understand is not the same as actual understanding. People who read the existing explanations and feel like they understand, when the explanations did not follow the process I described, do not truly understand. My complaint is not that when I read the explanations I don’t feel like I understand them; my complaint is that the extents to which Bayesianism have ever been laid out are insufficient for creating true understanding upon first reading.
You write really long paragraphs. My sense of style is to keep paragraphs at 1200 characters or less at all times, and the mean average paragraph no larger than 840 characters after excluding sub-160 character paragraphs from the averaged set. I am sorry that I am not good enough to read your text in its current form; I hope your post reaches people who are.