"Steven Kaas said, “Promoting less than maximally accurate beliefs is an act of sabotage. Don’t do it to anyone unless you’d also slash their tires.” Giving someone a false belief to protect—convincing them that the belief itself must be defended from any thought that seems to threaten it—well, you shouldn’t do that to someone unless you’d also give them a frontal lobotomy."

Dark Side Epistemology (via wrapscallion)

(via jenlog)

Tags: discourse

wanderdaydream:

i

twitterthecomic:

Are you tired of greasy pots and pans? Stubborn kitchen stains? Messy sponges and sprays? Me too. I wish the sun would devour the earth.— vladchoc (@vladchoc) January 17, 2013

twitterthecomic:

Scope insensitivity exists, and to avoid the mistakes caused by it, LWers say to shut up and multiply - to take how much you’d do for one instance of what you care about, then multiply the expected utility even when the conclusion may be counterintuitive. For example, if you’d be willing to pay $3 to have the oil scrubbed off one nearby salient bird suffering from an oil spill, you should be willing to pay more to have the oil scrubbed off >1 birds. But why not reason in the other direction? Instead of shutting up and multiplying, why not shut up and divide? Suppose you’re not willing to donate any amount of money to save thousands of faraway birds. Then it would be irrational for you to pay $3 to have the oil scrubbed off one salient bird.

It’s true that it’s irrational to both be willing to pay $3 to save one bird and not be willing to pay the same or more to save more birds. But from that alone, it doesn’t follow that you should donate >$3 to save more birds.

ordnungsokonomik:

What do Turkish people even do except convert Churches into Mosques lol. PwI (people without Islam) fucking built those Churches you have no right to appropriate them

sonatagreen:

Everyone is stoked that the latest versions of iOS and Android will (finally) encrypt all the information on your smartphone by default. Except, of course, the FBI: Today, its director spent an hour attacking the companies and the very idea of encryption, even suggesting that Congress should pass a law banning the practice of default encryption.

If an army occupying a hostile foreign nation were to impose mandatory universal surveillance of the civilian population, it would be an international scandal. I don’t think I’m going to far by saying that this law would be an act of war.

(Source: kopimia, via chroniclesofrettek)

Tags: police state

"

Tags like ‘stupid’, ‘bad at __’, ‘sloppy’, and so on, they’are ways of saying ‘You’re performing badly and I don’t know why’. Once you move it to ‘you’re performing badly because you have the wrong fingerings’, or ‘you’re performing badly because you don’t understand what a limit is’, it’s no longer a vague personal failing but a causal necessity. Anyone who never understood limits will flunk calculus. It’s not you, it’s the bug.



This also applies to ‘lazy’. Lazy just means ‘you’re not meeting your obligations and I don’t know why’. If it turns out that you’ve been missing appointments because you don’t keep a calendar, then you’re not intrinsically ‘lazy’, you were just executing the wrong procedure. And suddenly you stop wanting to call the person ‘lazy’ when it makes more sense to say they need organizational tools.

"

celandine (via raginrayguns)

I don’t think this accurately captures how most of those kinds of tags are used. For example, saying someone is bad at calculus can reduce to them not understanding what a limit is, but it can also mean that they have difficulty understanding calculus in general - for example, first they have difficulty understanding limits, then once they understand them they still have trouble with simple derivatives, then even once they understand those, they take a long time to understand more complicated derivatives, etc. If someone is bad at X, learning how to do X is unusually hard for them, or they may never learn how to do X at all. And it doesn’t necessarily imply “I don’t know why”, either. For example, I’m bad at basketball. I know that it’s because I’m generally not athletic or tall, haven’t trained much in basketball specifically, and have bad eyesight. It is still true if I say that I’m bad at basketball without going into specifics.

As for “lazy”, it isn’t just a claim that someone isn’t meeting their obligations, it’s that they don’t want to because they don’t want to work. It’s a pejorative term for “experiences high disutility of labor”. Someone who misses appointments because they’re disorganized can be described as “lazy” when the speaker doesn’t know their specific problem, but this is because the speaker assumes that they miss appointments because they really dislike taking the effort to keep them.

(Source: theunitofcaring, via drethelin)

Tags: discourse

lesleylloyd:

quiteyours:

it gets me every time

EVERY. TIME

lesleylloyd:

quiteyours:

it gets me every time

EVERY. TIME

(Source: howlolcanyougo, via wanderdaydream)

ordnungsokonomik:

Every day I get cheques in the mail from corporations thanking me for defending neoliberalism on the internet.

sitcorn:

"yeah, everything’s fine, i just tucked your kid into bed. but can i cover up the clown statue in the corner? it’s freaking me out"

"what? we dont have a kid. take our clown statue and get out of the house right now"

(via ordnungsokonomik)

quality-blogger:

But you’re still making the assertion, and so you have the burden of proof even if one theory is more realistic/simple than the alternatives. Parsimony may be a reason to reject agent-neutrality, but I’m not arguing that agent-neutrality is true. My point is that agent-neutrality doesn’t automatically hold the burden of proof

I made the claim that agent-relative value exists, and have provided evidence for it. Those arguing for agent-neutral value have the burden of proof for showing that it exists - if they don’t, we reject their claims as contrary to parsimony.

(Source: eccentric-opinion)

quality-blogger:

eccentric-opinion:

The existence of agent-relative value is obvious, as individual agents assign value to goods every day, and it motivates them to act. In contrast, it isn’t clear where agent-neutral value would come from if it’s to be such that we should care about it.

You’re misunderstanding burden of proof. It’s the person making a claim who must provide evidence for an argument. So in this case you must prove that agent-neutral value does not exist instead of merely stating that its existence is not obvious. That doesn’t prove a thing. Also, whether assigning value motivates one to act is far from self-evident, as it involves the issue of externalist vs. internalist moral motivation

Parsimony requires us to adopt the simpler model in the absence of evidence for a more complex model. In this case, evidence would be a successful argument for agent-neutral value. As for whether assigning value motivates one to act, it is at least uncontroversial that assigning value can motivate someone to act, and that a rational person would act to maximize value.

quality-blogger:

Why must the agent-neutral utilitarian prove that all utility is equal? Aren’t you the one making claims about equal utility when you say that agent-relativity is true?

The existence of agent-relative value is obvious, as individual agents assign value to goods every day, and it motivates them to act. In contrast, it isn’t clear where agent-neutral value would come from if it’s to be such that we should care about it.

(Source: eccentric-opinion)

chroniclesofrettek:

I think that putting forth effort towards some goal (such as producing something) is a worthwhile effort for humans to achieve.

I think this is a Typical Mind thing. Some people may enjoy it as a goal, while others would prefer to relax all day long.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/why-unemployment-matters/241658/

This is a good summary of why unemployment is bad in the current world, but much of this wouldn’t apply in a world in which people wouldn’t have to work. For example, it’s likely that the stigma against unemployment would decrease once not working would be commonplace. Unemployment is a negative signal for employers, so it makes sense that workers with a history of unemployment are paid less. In summary, being unemployed makes work worse later. But that’s not a problem if you never work at all. For example, if, in the future, people would own robots who’d produce everything they’d want, people wouldn’t need to work, so there’d be little reason to be embarrassed about the lack of a job, worry about human capital depreciation, etc. Perhaps some people would choose to work, as a hobby. Others wouldn’t.

(Source: eccentric-opinion)

The far left’s radical critique of Columbus Day rubs a lot of people the wrong way. But the facts are on their side. Columbus was not just a brutal slaver; he was a pioneer of slavery. I flipped through a dozen books on Columbus and slavery in the library today, and none of them disputes this - though the hagiographies generally omit “slavery” from the index.

Can you condemn a man just for being a slaver? Of course. It’s almost as bad as you can get.

- Bryan Caplan