nawitus

• nawitus 6 May 2012 20:59 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: ZankerH’s comment on: [SEQ RERUN] Science Doesn’t Trust Your Rationality

  If tipping stopped, waiting staff wages would increase and so would food prices (to pay for the wage increases).

• nawitus 24 Mar 2011 17:43 UTC

  7 points

  in reply to: FAWS’s comment on: A Ra­tion­al­ist’s Ac­count of Ob­jec­tifi­ca­tion?

  “Arguing against “Women suffer more unfairness”″

  Nobody has yet provided arguments that women suffer more in e.g. USA. I’d say my points are true to some degree in USA, except for military service and perhaps domestic violence. I’ve talked with a researcher of income equality, and atleast he said that wages are pretty much equal for male and females in the USA. Income is not. In Finland for example, males have 20% higher income, but they do 20% more work hours yearly.

  “Or do you deny the existence of international organizations working for equality, and that individuals have some (limited) ability to choose for which cause in which country they fight?”

  No, but each country has a local equity resource budget. A global one does not exist, but can be “conjured” up in your mind.

• nawitus 24 Mar 2011 15:34 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: TheOtherDave’s comment on: A Ra­tion­al­ist’s Ac­count of Ob­jec­tifi­ca­tion?

  I made a list of problems in a comment on a website. That’s not a good way to make politicial decisions. We need a proper study of the question. I think a priori the ⁵⁰⁄₅₀ split between genders is a good balance. You can call that a political compromise, I call it “don’t make quick decisions without proper scientific research”.

• nawitus 24 Mar 2011 15:26 UTC

  3 points

  0

  in reply to: TheOtherDave’s comment on: A Ra­tion­al­ist’s Ac­count of Ob­jec­tifi­ca­tion?

  My data justifies slightly more resources for men, but until we have proper scientific research on the question, I’m okay with a ⁵⁰⁄₅₀ split. The split is currently about ⁹⁷⁄₃ in favor of women, so going to ⁵⁰⁄₅₀ would help significantly.

• nawitus 24 Mar 2011 15:24 UTC

  10 points

  in reply to: FAWS’s comment on: A Ra­tion­al­ist’s Ac­count of Ob­jec­tifi­ca­tion?

  I didn’t claim you were talking about Finland. However, many of those issues are true in most Western nations. It’s just that I’m not an expert in any other country.

  “a global equality resource budget”

  This doesn’t even exist..

• nawitus 24 Mar 2011 14:10 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: TheOtherDave’s comment on: A Ra­tion­al­ist’s Ac­count of Ob­jec­tifi­ca­tion?

  “For example, by “evenly” do you mean ⁵⁰⁄₅₀ between these two causes?”

  Yes.

  More information here: http://​​lesswrong.com/​​r/​​discussion/​​lw/​​4vj/​​a_rationalists_account_of_objectification/​​3r3j

• nawitus 24 Mar 2011 13:50 UTC

  20 points

  in reply to: FAWS’s comment on: A Ra­tion­al­ist’s Ac­count of Ob­jec­tifi­ca­tion?

  “Women suffer more unfairness so presumably most resources would be directed towards them anyway, but there could easily be a number of low hanging fruit on the male side.”

  This claim is often made, but I haven’t seen any calculations to back it up. I’m active in the gender equality debate in Finland, so I can only talk about Finnish statistics:

  • Men are forced to serve on average 8,5 months in “slave work”. No modern work regulations apply. I personally witnessed many broken bones and other health problems which happened to my friends during my service. Work was often ²⁴⁄₇ for weeks. Psychological stress is commonplace.

  • Men make 80 % of suicides, and 80 % of the homeless are men.

  • Women have higher wages by 2 percent.

  • Men have less success in studying

  • Men don’t have sexual power

  • Men face the majority of violence (and men face as much domestic violence as women)

  • Mutilation of boys for religious reasons is legal, but mutilation of girls is illegal.

  • Men die seven years earlier

  • 60% of unemployed people seeking work are men

  (I can provide sources for these, but they would be in Finnish, so I don’t think most people are that interested, check http://​​mies.asia for more information though)

  Obviously, women also face problems like rape and lack of leadership positions in corporations. On the political front, we have a female president and a female prime minister.

  I’m not claiming definately that men suffer more, but this non-technical examination seems to imply it. At least it has not been proven that women suffer more nowadays.

  Until such calculation has been made, I think it should be reasonable to direct 50% of equality resources for feminism, and 50% for masculism.

  EDIT: There have been a downvote, but I don’t really understand why. Of course, Finland is only one nation, but similar lists have been made in USA for example. If this site assumes that we should only talk about USA, I think that’s unfair, since there’s a significant Finnish representation. I’m clearly talking about the situation in Finland, and the situation differs from country to country.

  There are of course some countries, where women have less freedom than men etc. I don’t think it makes sense to talk about a global average here, since equity politics are not a global, but local question.

  What links here?

  • nawitus's comment on A Ra­tion­al­ist’s Ac­count of Ob­jec­tifi­ca­tion? by lukeprog (24 Mar 2011 14:10 UTC; 0 points)

• nawitus 24 Mar 2011 11:59 UTC

  16 points

  on: A Ra­tion­al­ist’s Ac­count of Ob­jec­tifi­ca­tion?

  “I’m a tall white American male, so sometimes it takes a bit of work for me to understand what it’s like to be a member of a suppressed group.”

  Females are suppressed, and so are males. Gender roles suppress both genders. They also offer advantages to both genders.

  List of male privileges: http://​​www.amptoons.com/​​blog/​​the-male-privilege-checklist/​​

  List of female privileges: http://​​masculistadvice.blogspot.com/​​2008/​​06/​​female-privilege-list.html

  It is true that popular discourse paints females as the suppressed group and males as the non-suppressed group.

  “So I’ve always thought of myself as a feminist.”

  Feminism goes beyond technical gender equality of having the same rights and privileges. I’m a feminist too, because I think politics should solve problems facing women. And I’m also a masculist (or a men’s rights activist), since men’s problems should be solved too.

  “Of course, some activists (the word has positive connotations to me, BTW) pushed too far, as is the case in all large movements.”

  The main problem with feminism today is that all the political gender equality resources are directed to feminism. It should be evenly distributed between masculism and feminism.

• nawitus 9 Feb 2011 1:48 UTC

  6 points

  on: Pro­ce­du­ral Knowl­edge Gaps

  I stutter, and I’ve done it for as long as I can remember. Anyone know how to beat it? I feel this has pretty significant (negative) effects on my life, because I’m often afraid of speaking up in a group, as stuttering is extremely embarrassing.

  What links here?

  • Topics from “Pro­ce­du­ral Knowl­edge Gaps” by NancyLebovitz (11 Feb 2012 21:38 UTC; 58 points)

• nawitus 24 Aug 2010 17:59 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: daedalus2u’s comment on: Min­i­mum com­pu­ta­tion and data re­quire­ments for con­scious­ness.

  And that’s why we need an article somewhere which would define some common terms, so you don’t have to define them all over again in every article about consciousness.

• nawitus 24 Aug 2010 11:44 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Oscar_Cunningham’s comment on: Min­i­mum com­pu­ta­tion and data re­quire­ments for con­scious­ness.

  Yet qualia cannot be measured empirically (atleast that’s the consensus), which makes such tests extremely unlikely. And this discussion seems to turn into a regular qualia debate. I’m not sure if that’s desirable.

• nawitus 24 Aug 2010 10:39 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: cousin_it’s comment on: Min­i­mum com­pu­ta­tion and data re­quire­ments for con­scious­ness.

  He is probably talking about the hard problem of consciousness, e.g. whether qualia exists. While it’s possible conceptually to have empirical tests for subjective consciousness, it’s seems extremely unlikely.

  We can already imagine a computational simulation of the brain, and empirical test for qualia seems impossible pretty much by definition. Sure, it’s possible to test whether the simulation has self-awareness from a computational point (and it will have that since it’s a human brain simulation).

• nawitus 24 Aug 2010 10:23 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: Unknowns’s comment on: Min­i­mum com­pu­ta­tion and data re­quire­ments for con­scious­ness.

  There should be some kind of “read this first before talking about consciousness” post which would atleast provide some definitions so articles about consciousness would be comprehensive.

• nawitus 24 Aug 2010 9:20 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Min­i­mum com­pu­ta­tion and data re­quire­ments for con­scious­ness.

  Consciousness actually means a number of different things, so any one definition will make discussion problematic. There really should be a number of different definitions for qualia/​subjective consciousness, empirical consciousness etc.

• nawitus 12 Aug 2010 18:21 UTC

  −2 points

  in reply to: Vladimir_Nesov’s comment on: Is it ra­tio­nal to be re­li­gious? Si­mu­la­tions are re­quired for an­swer.

  And you don’t provide any arguments for your claim either..

  Okay, here’s one: Even with time-continuos self, humans value other people, even though they personally experience anything other peope do. There’s some (moral) value in other persons. Maybe people value themselves more, but that’s not even relevant to the argument. So, if time-continuos self doesn’t exist, people will value their future selfs as much as any other persons, which is atleast more than nothing.

  Of course, this assumes that such a person does value other people. May not apply to every single person.

• nawitus 12 Aug 2010 14:15 UTC

  −2 points

  in reply to: Vladimir_Nesov’s comment on: Is it ra­tio­nal to be re­li­gious? Si­mu­la­tions are re­quired for an­swer.

  Eh. If you don’t know the argument it’s irrational to call it wrong. I didn’t really argue anything, I just made an observation for those people who possibly believe that time-continuos self is required for morality.

• nawitus 11 Aug 2010 21:55 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: Vladimir_Nesov’s comment on: Is it ra­tio­nal to be re­li­gious? Si­mu­la­tions are re­quired for an­swer.

  Care to give an example then?

• nawitus 11 Aug 2010 17:39 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: cousin_it’s comment on: Is it ra­tio­nal to be re­li­gious? Si­mu­la­tions are re­quired for an­swer.

  The lack of belief in a time-continuos self would give the same moral value to yourself as to other people, but wouldn’t eliminate caring about yourself altogether.

• nawitus 11 Aug 2010 15:27 UTC

  7 points

  on: Is it ra­tio­nal to be re­li­gious? Si­mu­la­tions are re­quired for an­swer.

  According to these definitions, it could be instrumentally rational to be religious for some subset of people, but not epimestically rational.

  What links here?

  • thomblake's comment on Is it ra­tio­nal to be re­li­gious? Si­mu­la­tions are re­quired for an­swer. by Aleksei_Riikonen (11 Aug 2010 17:01 UTC; 9 points)

• nawitus 8 Aug 2010 21:15 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: XiXiDu’s comment on: Open Thread, Au­gust 2010

  You can use the wget program like this: ‘wget -m lesswrong.com’. A database download would be easier on the servers though.