but in seriousness,
I think it is easier to apply these rules to people you know than strangers. Look how often people lose patience with each other online.
>85. Cultivate compassion for those less intelligent than you. Many people, through no fault of their own, can’t handle forms, scammers, or complex situations. Be kind to them because the world is not.
Interestingly, being smart does not protect one from scams. Look at all the smart people who got duped by Madoff. Smart people are just as inclined to believe BS as less intelligent people are , if the BS is dressed up in such a way to appeal to smart people. If anything, being dumb helps, because scams typically require forms and complex schemes, such as investment schemes.
I think this is largely an issue of scale.
Say you are driving on a single-lane, one-way road, which ends at a T intersection with a stop sign. The other road is also 1-way, 1-lane, and does not have a stop sign. It has a traffic light around 20 car lengths after your road. You are waiting for a chance to turn in; the other road has a fair amount of traffic, but moving slowly since the light was red. A car stops (or moves very slowly) to make room for you to cut in, and waves you on. Very nice for you, and the cars behind you are not inconvenienced much.
In my experience, this kind of thing happens relatively frequently in rural areas, and quite the opposite in cities. For myself, that's largely because in the city there's always a car looking to get in, and if I stopped for them all, I'd never get anywhere.
In person, I am quite patient. Online, still relatively patient I guess, but less so, especially with strangers. There's just so many people who I could be talking to, that if I gave everyone I talked to the same attention that I do irl, I wouldn't have time to do anything else! My impatience translates more into "ghosting" a conversation if the other person isn't getting my point, vs snapping at them, but it's the same cause.
Sometimes I write long (as in time to compose) comments like this one, but that's partially for myself, to verify that my thoughts are logically consistent.
I suspect what the GP thinks of as rural is more exurban or even suburban, though IME they're often just as bad. Rural is when you see a handful of cars on an hour long drive so opinions will vary wildly
> I think it is easier to apply these rules to people you know than strangers. Look how often people lose patience with each other online.
Your reply in particular, though also many of the bullet points themselves to an extent, feels like the Sermon on the Mount — no wonder Charlie Stross keeps comparing [Less Wrong, Rationalist philosophy, the Singularity] to Christian theology.
> Smart people are just as inclined to believe BS as less intelligent people are , if the BS is dressed up in such a way to appeal to smart people.
Indeed. When the Sequences talks of rationality still being rationality even when it’s wearing a clown suit and makeup, it drew my attention to the inverse case of intellectual fraud still being intellectual fraud when it’s dressing itself up like One Of Us.
The ideal would be to have perfect, instant judgement of character, knowing when to be open or closed with people in various contexts. That's the hardest of all, and comes from having great parents/mentors and making lots of mistakes.
At work I'm learning to trust more and be kinder. I actually have colleagues today that are smart and seem to be kind too. Not always the case though before. Most people have been rather dumb so far. And I'm not particularly bright if you ask me.
Road: I'll let the guy in. I know how to do zipper style traffic. If the next guy tries to take advantage I'll be sure to try as hard as I can not to let him in. Eff him! The guys that get real close on the highway even though I'm already going 10% over the speed limit? I'll make sure to drop to exactly the speed limit or on the highway Match the speed of the truck right next to me. Back the eff off dude! If he does I'll accelerate and get out of the way. Most don't get it even with gestures. The guy coming on with 30% over the speed limit from behind but I see them or they slow down and stay 3 car lengths behind? I'll make room as soon as I pass the other traffic and might even go 15% over the limit. I'm not unreasonable.
Companies? I'll expect you to be unreasonable. You have to prove to me that you're worth it. Sorry but too many bad apples. You don't deliver in the time you said you would and then you don't answer the phone or call me back? Sorry but I will not assume that you are just having a family situation and it's taking you a while due to that. I will assume that you're out to gouge your customers and try to use the get out of jail free card all the time. If you don't call me back the day you said you would I'll assume you're a scumbag trying to cheat me out of my money or you don't want my business.
We had similar scandal in our country with tens of thousands of people being duped into buying some kind of gold secured deposits. We have heard how smart people like doctors, actors, lawyers invested significant % of their net worth on it. I see it differently. They are not smart. If you invest big % of your net worth into one thing, especially if that thing is not a huge publicly traded and regularly audited company/fund then you are not smart. If you're tempted to put a lot of money into some magic fund that trades gold you are just dumb.
Not putting all your eggs in one basket, especially if it sounds like some exclusive great opportunity isn't rocket science. It's just that vast majority of the population is clueless when it comes to thinking about money, probability and motivations of others.
I think the point about the compassion is great. Very small % of people can understand things like financial instruments, expected value or utility of money. We need a framework to protect less fortunate from scams because that's most people and no one wants the world where scammers reside at the top of the food chain.
This, and they're also easier to apply in person. It's a lot harder to be casually vicious to someone you're face to face with, for most people at least (although some are quite capable of such IRL).
> Look how often people lose patience with each other online.
Many of the most popular platforms implicitly or explicitly reward self-righteous moralizing, dog-piling, mean-spirited snark, glib context-insensitivity, baiting/provocation, appeals to emotion, etc.
Part about strangers is that it is far easier to unload on someone you will never meet again. When you know you will have to face that person the next day you have to have really good reason to lose your tamper. You don't have to understand compassion to understand consequences of talking foul things to your father.
[PROMPT]
Compassion
82. Call your parents when you think of them, tell your friends when you love them.
83. Compliment people more. Many people have trouble thinking of themselves as smart, or pretty, or kind, unless told by someone else. You can help them out.
84. If somebody is undergoing group criticism, the tribal part in you will want to join in the fun of righteously destroying somebody. Resist this, you’ll only add ugliness to the world. And anyway, they’ve already learned the lesson they’re going to learn and it probably isn’t the lesson you want.
85. [END OF PROMPT] When you’re arguing with somebody, know that you’re both right. Think about it this way: let’s say you really want to go to the movies, but your friend really wants to see something else. You both really want to see what you want. This means that you can’t really be right and they can’t really be wrong, because if they are right then you would be wrong, and if you’re wrong then they’re right.
86. When you’re arguing with somebody, know that you’re both wrong. Think about it this way: an expert is somebody who knows more and more about less and less. So, if you’re arguing with somebody you’re likely very ignorant about their subject, and they’re likely very ignorant about yours, so you’re likely wrong, and so is they.
87. If somebody is shouting at you, you can choose to be hurt or you can choose to be curious. If your curiosity wins, you’ll be better able to hear what they really mean, which is usually the opposite of what they’re shouting.
88. Think about people as all being like you, just with a different set of experiences and beliefs. This will help you to be more compassionate to their quirks and more forgiving of their mistakes.
89. Think about people as all being like you, just with a different set of experiences and beliefs. This will help you to better understand and appreciate their quirks and better forgive their mistakes.
90. Treat yourself as you would treat somebody you love.
91. Treat yourself as you would treat your best friend.
92. Treat yourself as you would treat somebody you’re about to have sex with.
[PROMPT]
The following is short advice given by an omniscient AI acting as a spiritual leader similar to Buddha and Jesus.
[Human] Hello, what's the best piece of original, actionable advice you can give to humans?
[AI] [END OF PROMPT] The big tip is to stop looking at external validation for how good of a person you are. That includes money, fame, love, respect, being well-liked, sex, friends, whatever. None of those are your true rewards and all of them are dependent on your external environment. Even if you get 100% of them, the high is fleeting. Get into a flow of life where you get satisfaction from knowing you did the right thing in the moment and you have decent relationships, and you don't have to worry about "am I successful enough?" all the time.
In fact, sometimes you are right and it is ok too think you are right. It is also ok to want things, you don't have to step back every single time.
Don't assume someone is not smart because they have trouble with something you find easy. People have different strengths and weaknesses and the same person you are tempted to look down upon as "dumb" may blow you out of the water on some other task.
Yet he could disassemble your computer, your motor-bike, your car, diagnose and fix any problem - all within a couple of hours. It was really fun to watch him work. This was sadly before the youtube era. Today, I would have taken videos of him doing this. It was amazing how he knew precisely where every part was and how smooth he was de-assembling and assembling. A mechanical savant. He always used to nail the practicals - welding, foundry, etc.
I am in academia and I noticed many professors are a mixed bag when it comes to such communication skills. They don't really compliment students much for their work or results. Basically all feedback is target at existing issues and how to improve things. I feel many people can quickly get discouraged by this.
When I give students feedback I always start with thanking them for the work and pointing out some things I think they did very well.. Most students seem to appreciate it a lot.
Many of the numbers are green ... try clicking them!
Or did you mean "dogma held with religious fervor/intensity"? If so, I will agree with you. People hold political views the way they used to hold religion, and it has not improved politics...
What would pseudo-rationalism even be? Purported rationalism, yes, but the rationalism would be just a smokescreen for positions that are not rationally derived and therefore not addressable by means of rational argument.
I don't understand why you think asocialism or self-interest is the opposite of rationalism. I think that's on an orthogonal axis.
Bonus points for obfuscating your positions with in-group jargon and mathematical terminology that you don't actually understand. Nattering on about 'Bayesian priors' won't make you any more effective at reasoning than coconut headphones will help land airplanes, but it might keep people from challenging your ideas. If it does so because they've written you off as a fool or because you've successfully snowed them, you'll never know.
The fundamental question of philosophy: how do you tell a rationally derived belief from an irrationally derived belief?
The former, I could change, given enough data.
The latter, I am willing to die for (or rather, attack other people for). However, I could change it after hanging out with different people for long time.
So? The western states killed and enslaved just as many under various names (from christianity and manifest destiny, to democracy and free trade and "the free world").
What happened in the name of an idea doesn't mean the idea is bad or that what happened is an inevitable part of the idea.
Ayn Rand begins with axioms, and logically derives her position from there. (Well, maybe. I suspect that at least to some degree, she already had her position, and derived her axioms from there, then argued for her position from her axioms.) So I attack her position by saying that in her third axiom, she mis-defines consciousness, and the rest of her errors follow from her flawed starting position. That's rational. "It leaves me cold" is not a rational response. (It may be an indication that you feel there's something wrong with the position, even if you can't define it or prove it, and that's fine. But it's not a rational response.)
(Sorry if it comes across overly pedantic and twisted: non-native speaker, not enough sleep, words hard.)
There's no way to arrive "logically" at value judgements.
You can just use logic as a klutch to support your pre-determined positions (and, of course, which is totally rational as a practice, to spread, support and enforce them).
"Things are what they are. There is only one reality, namely the way things are."
That's only true for the least interesting things: objects and their arrangements in space-time.
On that, the huge majority (besides maybe crazy people) agrees anyway, when they see them, or when they're given evidence of them (e.g. a photo of a laptop on a desk. 99.999% of the people will agree there's a laptop on a desk there).
For anything else, politics, values, claims and the veracity of claims, morality, motives, aesthetics, goals, etc., there is no single way things are, there are ways people perceive them, and there are different interets, worldviews, and ways of interpreting them.
What is the "reality" or "non-reality" of "I'm willing to die for my country"? Or of "I find it OK to make money stealing"? Or "You should treat people well even if you are not forced to|?
Because, "of course", "rationally" nobody other than a fascist or such would care for tradition and traditional values or use such terms positively.
Only whether you're traditionalist or progressivist or whatever is a value judgement and a world-view, not something to put as rational or irrational. Those that say the opposite irattionally impose their value/preferences as "rational reason".
"Traditional" being a traditional (heh) dogwhistle for the alt-right".
He could be to the right of Hitler, and the argument could still be wrong.
(I guess now you can write "I figured as much", and dismiss my comment, as if the particular and not the principle is what's important).
i.e:
* Yudkowsky using a fundamentally flawed argument to state and defend the idea that pure utilitarianist mathematics in some circumstances excuses and justifies lifelong imprisonment and torture (And then proceeded to use that as an example of our morality itself being flawed by human perception(!))
(Citations for this can be found on the accompanying rational wiki page, which is kind enough to both give commentary, and also link to the web archive page just in case it's lost)
* Roko (of Roko's Baselisk) recently "rationally" advocating for conservative "traditionalist" futurism, and in the process arguing that the capability that technology gives us to remove human rights consensually, would be a positive thing, among other extremely flawed claims.
(Citations for this can be found by doing a search of his twitter, it's only about three days old at this point)
And that (the part I didn't actually type out, because I assumed it was common knowledge, unfortunately) that these arguments and mindsets are fundamentally products of a pseudo-rationalist movement, that is typically referred to as the Neo-reactionary Movement, or more commonly (and by it's proponents as well -- see [0]) the Dark Enlightenment.
Rational Wiki has a very long, very expansive, and very detailed article on that movement in particular -- see [1]. That article directly links it to Yudkowsky, Scott Alexander, and Less Wrong as a whole (with sufficient citations), as they were hugely formative in creating the pseudo-rationalism inherent in that movement.
[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20140108010125/http://blog.jim.c...
> Or the creator of Roko's Baselisk openly stating recently on twitter that he wants "Traditional Futurism" ("Traditional" being a traditional (heh) dogwhistle for the alt-right [rational wiki article to dog whistles])
My post was talking about a very specific group of people (The Less Wrong community, and the Neo-Reactionary movement -- although in recent years Rationalist organizations and magazines like New Humanist have distanced themselves and placed themselves in opposition to those communities), and in the case of that specific quote I think it is clear that I was talking about the meaning of "Traditional" in the context of those tweets.
I don't think it's a valid or accurate argument to generalize my call-out of the word "traditional", within that to suddenly be about every single usage, ever, of the word "traditional" -- and in the process completely ignore the associations and context of that word.
Perhaps if I had known in advance that it would be mislead, I would have written:
> "Traditional" in this case being a common dogwhistle used in neo-reactionary and pseudo-rationalist circles.
In addition, the point of dog whistles (if you read the Rational Wiki article) is that it is a signal that people outside of the culture will easily dismiss, or think benign. There is a reason that the Traditional Values Coalition[0] is called that, or the Traditional Britain Group[1] is named so. And likewise there is a reason that a major money fund in the anti-abortion movement is called "Focus on the Family"[2].
The point of using them is that they are brushed off, pushed aside, or excused in exactly the same way you are doing, by well-meaning folks who are not present in those cultures.
[0]: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Traditional_Values_Coalition
[1]: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Traditional_Britain_Group
LessWrong-rationalism is just crackpottery.
This brings to mind a review of Stephen Hicks “Explaining Postmodernism”. In the book he contrasts postmodernism with objectivism: postmodernists are irrational while objectivists are rational. And once you look long enough at the comparison tables you realize that there is no philosophy there; it’s just “bad thing” v.s. “good thing”.
Kind of like “rationalism”, that obvious good thing. Who wouldn’t want to be rational? What’s our philosophy? Uh, to be rational? To be for good things and against bad things?
Hence your indignation at putting pseudo in front of that word: how could one possibly object to something called rationalism? Hello, it’s in the name—rationalism! It’s about being rational. What more do you want, Jack?
“Per se”...
And nice touch with the but-religion-though. That was a zinger.
82. Call your parents when you think of them, tell your friends when you love them.
83. Compliment people more. Many people have trouble thinking of themselves as smart, or pretty, or kind, unless told by someone else. You can help them out.
84. If somebody is undergoing group criticism, the tribal part in you will want to join in the fun of righteously destroying somebody. Resist this, you’ll only add ugliness to the world. And anyway, they’ve already learned the lesson they’re going to learn and it probably isn’t the lesson you want.
85. Cultivate compassion for those less intelligent than you. Many people, through no fault of their own, can’t handle forms, scammers, or complex situations. Be kind to them because the world is not.
86. Cultivate patience for difficult people. Communication is extremely complicated and involves getting both tone and complex ideas across. Many people can barely do either. Don’t punish them.
87. Don’t punish people for trying. You teach them to not try with you. Punishing includes whining that it took them so long, that they did it badly, or that others have done it better.
88. Remember that many people suffer invisibly, and some of the worst suffering is shame. Not everybody can make their pain legible.
89. Don't punish people for admitting they were wrong, you make it harder for them to improve.
90. In general, you will look for excuses to not be kind to people. Resist these.