VCavallo

• VCavalloApr 5, 2013, 4:14 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: olibain’s comment on: [SEQ RERUN] Can Hu­man­ism Match Reli­gion’s Out­put?

  What about the policy of making an effort on your own and opting out of groups of either variety?

• VCavalloApr 5, 2013, 4:11 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: [SEQ RERUN] Can Hu­man­ism Match Reli­gion’s Out­put?

  I’m not sure what you mean about religious groups’ aid being secular. It seems like you are saying medicine and food are “secular” things, while prayer is a “religious” thing. Sure you can’t pray money into existence, so it’s sort of a “secular thing”, but the useful question is really who is giving the thing, not how it came to be.

  The issue at hand is what organization is at the source of the charitable donations—a secular organization or a religious one. That’s a question that is worth asking. Whether or not the aid they are giving has been originally created by a god, magic or science isn’t really important for this question.

  I didn’t downvote you, but I suspect whoever did shared this reasoning.

• VCavalloApr 5, 2013, 3:11 PM

  7 points

  on: Call for help: vol­un­teers needed to proofread MIRI’s publications

  Started the sign up process now. Thanks!

• VCavalloApr 4, 2013, 9:16 PM

  2 points

  in reply to: Shmi’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013)

  I completely agree with what you are saying and also tap out, even though it may be redundant. Let us kill this line of comments together.

• VCavalloApr 4, 2013, 8:36 PM

  5 points

  in reply to: Shmi’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013)

  They could just be a weird sort of lazy whereby they don’t scroll back up and change anything. Or maybe they never see his post. Or something else. I don’t think the -%positive-not-going-down-yet is any indication that wedrifid’s comment is not right.

• VCavalloApr 4, 2013, 7:16 PM

  6 points

  in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013)

  Egalitarian instinct. Eliezer is using power against you, which drastically raises the standards of behavior expected from him while doing so—including less tolerance of him getting things wrong.

  Nailed it on the head. As my cursor began to instinctively over the “upvote” button on shminux’s comment I caught myself and thought, why am I doing this?. And while I didn’t come to your exact conclusion I realized my instinct had something to do with EY’s “use of power” and shminux’s gentle reply. Some sort of underdog quality that I didn’t yet take the time to assess but that my mouse-using-hand wanted badly to blindly reward.

  I’m glad you pieced out the exact reasoning behind the scenes here. Stopping and taking a moment to understand behavior and then correct based on that understanding is why I am here.

  That said, I really should think for a long time about your explanation before voting you up, too!

• VCavalloApr 4, 2013, 6:58 PM

  2 points

  in reply to: Intrism’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013)

  Thank you for introducing me to the term akrasia!

• VCavalloApr 4, 2013, 6:56 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: lll’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013)

  If your Reddit time commitment was anything like that of other people I know, you should be able to blow through all the sequences in about a day or two : )

• VCavalloApr 4, 2013, 3:37 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013)

  Thanks, I’ll get started making stupid mistakes as quickly as I can! I’m sorry I wasn’t able to make any here.

• VCavalloApr 4, 2013, 3:17 PM

  7 points

  on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013)

  Hey! My name is Vinney, I’m 28 years old and live in New York City.

  To be exceedingly brief: I’ve been working through the sequences (quite slowly and sporadically) for the past year and a half. I’ve loved everything I’ve seen on LW so far and I expect to continue. I hope to ramp up my study this year and finally get through the rest of the sequences.

  I’d like to become more active in discussions but feel like I should finish the sequences first so I don’t wind up making some silly error in reasoning and committing it to a comment. Perhaps that isn’t an ideal approach to the community discussions, but I suspect it may be common..