Rationality is a combination of keeping your map of the world as correct as you can (“epistemic rationality”, also known as “science” outside of LW)
I’m not sure that’s what people usually mean by science. And most of the questions we’re concerned about in our lives (“am I going to be able to pay the credit in time?”) are not usually considered to be scientific ones.
Other than that minor nitpick, I agree.
If there is a heaven and the killed firstborn went there, then killing them (or anyone else, for that matter) is quite harmless. And killing is wrong for people not because it causes harm, but because God forbids it. It’s a strange view, but not an obviously inconsistent one. On the other hand I’ve always shied away from moral attacks just because the counterargument of “So, God’s not benevolent, now what? You still had to worship it for a few decades or you are going to literally burn for eternity” seemed so obvious. Like it seems pointless to argue that Dumbledore is evil when you’re trying to prove he never existed.
A lossless explanation is reductionist
Isn’t that what people mean when they say reductionism is right?
I think it’s not so much a sum of properties as a union of property sets. If a system has a property that’s not a part of a union then it’s “more than the sum of its components”. On the other hand I find the notion of something being “more than the sum of its parts” about as annoying as the frequent ads with “1 + 1 = 3 Buy two and get one for free!” equation. That is, very annoying.
How old is it, exactly?
It seems interesting that a lot of spiritual experiences are something that happens in non-normal situations. To get them people may try denying food or sleep, stay in the same place for a long time without motion, working themselves to exhaustion, eating poisons, going to a place of different atmospheric pressure or do something else they don’t normally try to do. The whole process is suspiciously similar to program testing, when you try the program in some situations its creator (evolution in case of humans) haven’t “thought” much about. And then sometimes there are bugs. And if you don’t follow the protocols for already discovered bugs you either risk crashing something really important or getting nothing at all. Bugs are real and may give a valuable information on the program’s inner workings, but they’re not “the final truth about the underlaying reality”.
The belief of the revelatory nature of spiritual experiences may be a result of a “just world” bias. When you get your reward you’ve been working for for years, it’s easier to believe you understood something profound about the reality rather than that you’ve discovered an error in your brain. If that’s the case then “If you spin a lot, you’ll get vertigo” or “if you sit on your hand long enough, there would be strange feeling there” or “look through the autostereogram picture to see it in 3D” may be thought of as spiritual experiences, but they’re too easy and mundane for that.
It is possible to talk about utilitarian culpability, but it’s a question of “would blaming/punishing this (kind of) person lead to good results”. Like you usually shouldn’t blame those who can’t change their behavior as a response to blame unless they self-modified themselves to be this way or if them being blameless would motivate others that can… That reminds me of the Eight Short Studies On Excuses, where Yvain has demonstrated an example of such an approach.
Isn’t the question of someone being a good or a bad person at all a part of virtue ethics? That is, for a utilitarian the results of the bystander’s and murderer’s actions were the same, and therefore actions were as bad as each other, but that doesn’t mean a bystander is as bad as the murderer, because that’s not a part of utilitarian framework at all. Should we implement the policy of blaming or punishing them the same way? That’s a question for utilitarianism. And the answer is probably “no”.
But then the difference in intelligence would be almost completely shared + nonshared environment. And twin studies suggest it’s very inheritable. It also seems to be a polygenic trait, so there can be quite a lot of new mutations there that haven’t yet reached fixation even if it’s strongly selected for.
Thank you for the explaination.
Sorry, I’m still not getting it. Doesn’t matter.
It’s ignoring the context that can be described as not going deep enough. My other usual algorithm “if the question seems easy, look for a deeper meaning” is not without its faults either. Btw, what the context of a single question that asks me to describe my opinion of something as I understand the term actually is?
Alright, I got it, I fail critical reading forever. Yet. Growth mindset. What was the real meaning?
Not really arguing anything. I’m asking if there is a rational non-meta reason to believe they do “stop at the neck” even if we throw away all the IQ/nations data.
Thanks for the reason I’ve missed. Are personal traits as important?
When trying to understand writing, don’t go for the strawman. Try to understand what could be meant.
I try to, but here I could be overcompensating from sometimes “going too deep” with questions like that. If the question was “Do you believe interpopulational genetic differences in mental abilities or character traits are large enough to be a factor in policy making”, I’d answer “No” and maybe even “Hell no, for a multinational population”. But that seems like a very different question.
Sure, I would still bet they’re going to be statistically significant if we get millions of people into the dataset. They may also have some important consequences in real life (a higher resistance to a specific disease may be important for a person with some usually small probability. A population of million that is more resistant to the disease than it could be is about million times that important). It just shouldn’t influence policies much. Though it can make a difference in healthcare… well, no. It actually can influence some policies and economic results for countries with different populations. Lactose tolerance may have effects on agriculture and the export structure, especially long term. The question singles out intelligence and personality traits for no apparent reasons but controversy, being hard to measure and being on the spiritual side of dualism. And probably being more involved in our ideas of human worthiness than height is.
The question was: “115. How would you describe your opinion of the idea of “human biodiversity”, as you understand the term? No Wiki page available, but essentially it is the belief that there are important genetic differences between human populations and that therefore ideas generally considered racist, such as different races having different average intelligence or personality traits, are in fact scientifically justified”.
No matter how we clusterize people into races, unless it’s some kind of a good randomization procedure I think the probability of their average traits being exactly equal is really small. I’m much less sure it’s scientifically justified to say so as I don’t know much about the state of research there.
I maybe kind of missed the “important” word there. Still...
After the survey I’ve become confused about what it means for HBD to be false. Should any difference between two separated populations be completely environmental? I believe it’s an antiprediction to think it’s not. I would bet that the “genetic potential” for any complex trait will be slightly different on average between different populations even if we are talking about two neighboring cities. Even if they started out as copies of each other just a few generations ago. I also believe that the differences are small and are mostly irrelevant to any real world problem. If it’s HBD, how does a person argue that it’s false? And how does someone argue that believing it makes someone a bad person?
Improving epistemic rationality, at least. Better thinking through understanding our mind’s flaws. I don’t think anyone here has a “perfect brain”. Maybe it’s possible to improve instrumental rationality while having no way to distinguish lies from truth, but it would probably be a random walk.
There is no way to offer color to a colorblind man, nor is there any way for us to give the man of imperfect brain the canny skill to distinguish a lie from a truth.
There is no point to this “rationality” project anymore, everybody can go home.
I’m always confused by the “spiritual atheist” question, that is, the “spiritual” part. Can anyone who selected this option try to explain what they meant when they selected it?
Ping