http://lesswrong.com/lw/1d9/doing_your_good_deed_for_the_day/
Quotepeople who did one good deed were less likely to do another good deed in the near future.
Quotein his circles, it's well known that people having lunch after church tend to abuse the waitstaff and tip poorly... He says that, having proven to their own satisfaction that they are godly and holy people, doing something else godly and holy like being nice to others would be overkill.
QuoteIf this is true, then anything that makes people feel moral without actually doing good is no longer a harmless distraction. All those biases that lead people to give time and money and thought to causes that don't really merit them waste not only time and money, but an exhaustible supply of moral fiber
Quotesome of the other activities Dr. Beck mentions as morality sinkholes seem appropriate, with a few of the words changed:
Bible study
Voting Republican
Going on spiritual retreats
Reading religious books
Arguing with evolutionists
Sending your child to a Christian school or providing education at home
Using religious language
Avoiding R-rated movies
Not reading Harry Potter.
I would add to the less religion-o-centric list:
Joining "1000000 STRONG AGAINST WORLD HUNGER" type Facebook groups
Reading a book about the struggles faced by poor people, and telling people how emotional it made you
"Raising awareness of problems" without raising awareness of any practical solution
Taking (or teaching) college courses about the struggles of the less fortunate
Many forms of political, religious, and philosophical arguments
Relevant: The smug "virtue" of the Ethical Shopper (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=24571.0)
Good link, I was thinking of this study when the tarot lady in the other thread was all "BUT I DO CHARITY WORK."
I've noticed this tendency before, both in others and in myself. My theory was always that people set a "goodness quota" that, once fulfilled, allowed them to behave in more selfish and nasty ways. Also, the easier the good act is, the lower the threshold for the less ethical behaviour.
4:10
Today's link:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/gm9/philosophical_landmines/
QuoteLast summer I was talking to my sister about something. I don't remember the details, but I invoked the concept of "truth", or "reality" or some such. She immediately spit out a cached reply along the lines of "But how can you really say what's true?".
Of course I'd learned some great replies to that sort of question right here on LW, so I did my best to sort her out, but everything I said invoked more confused slogans and cached thoughts. I realized the battle was lost. Worse, I realized she'd stopped thinking. Later, I realized I'd stopped thinking too.
QuoteIn the course of normal conversation, you passed through an ordinary spot that happened to conceal the dangerous leftovers of past memetic wars. As a result, an intelligent and reasonable human was reduced to a mindless zombie chanting prerecorded slogans. If you're lucky, that's all. If not, you start chanting counter-slogans and the whole thing goes supercritical.
QuoteIt looks like when a lot has been said on a confusing topic, usually something in philosophy, there is a large complex of slogans and counter-slogans installed as cached thoughts around it. Certain words or concepts will trigger these cached thoughts, and any attempt to mitigate the damage will trigger more of them. Of course they will also trigger cached thoughts in other people, which in turn... The result being that the conversation rapidly diverges from the original point to some useless yet heavily discussed attractor.
QuoteLandmines in a topic make it really hard to discuss ideas or do work in these fields, because chances are, someone is going to step on one, and then there will be a big noisy mess that interferes with the rather delicate business of thinking carefully about confusing ideas.
I read one of my mom's psychology papers she wrote when she was a student for the second time.
The subject was creativity, so naturally the concept of creative and destructive being opposites irked me. (THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME THING DAMMIT!)
You just made me realize that this is one instance where my cached thoughts got triggered without any conscious influence.
It is not a realisation i am easily processing.
Asshole! You made me realize i'm an idiot even when i feel i am right.
Yeah that last one is very relevant for me right now... Thanks for keeping this thread going, LMNO.
I like this series...and i just found out they provide podcasts!!! so now i have no excuse not to follow.
I reposted that on the Westboro Discordian group, because it seemed relevant, but crickets. :lol:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ik/one_argument_against_an_army/
QuoteYesterday I talked about a style of reasoning in which not a single contrary argument is allowed, with the result that every non-supporting observation has to be argued away. Today I suggest that when people encounter a contrary argument, they prevent themselves from downshifting their confidence by rehearsing already-known support.
Suppose the country of Freedonia is debating whether its neighbor, Sylvania, is responsible for a recent rash of meteor strikes on its cities. There are several pieces of evidence suggesting this: the meteors struck cities close to the Sylvanian border; there was unusual activity in the Sylvanian stock markets before the strikes; and the Sylvanian ambassador Trentino was heard muttering about "heavenly vengeance".
Someone comes to you and says: "I don't think Sylvania is responsible for the meteor strikes. They have trade with us of billions of dinars annually." "Well," you reply, "the meteors struck cities close to Sylvania, there was suspicious activity in their stock market, and their ambassador spoke of heavenly vengeance afterward." Since these three arguments outweigh the first, you keep your belief that Sylvania is responsible—you believe rather than disbelieve, qualitatively. Clearly, the balance of evidence weighs against Sylvania.
Then another comes to you and says: "I don't think Sylvania is responsible for the meteor strikes. Directing an asteroid strike is really hard. Sylvania doesn't even have a space program." You reply, "But the meteors struck cities close to Sylvania, and their investors knew it, and the ambassador came right out and admitted it!" Again, these three arguments outweigh the first (by three arguments against one argument), so you keep your belief that Sylvania is responsible.
Indeed, your convictions are strengthened. On two separate occasions now, you have evaluated the balance of evidence, and both times the balance was tilted against Sylvania by a ratio of 3-to-1.
You encounter further arguments by the pro-Sylvania traitors—again, and again, and a hundred times again—but each time the new argument is handily defeated by 3-to-1. And on every occasion, you feel yourself becoming more confident that Sylvania was indeed responsible, shifting your prior according to the felt balance of evidence.
The problem, of course, is that by rehearsing arguments you already knew, you are double-counting the evidence This would be a grave sin even if you double-counted all the evidence. (Imagine a scientist who does an experiment with 50 subjects and fails to obtain statistically significant results, so he counts all the data twice.)
But to selectively double-count only some evidence is sheer farce. I remember seeing a cartoon as a child, where a villain was dividing up loot using the following algorithm: "One for you, one for me. One for you, one-two for me. One for you, one-two-three for me."
As I emphasized yesterday, even if a cherished belief is true, a rationalist may sometimes need to downshift the probability while integrating all the evidence. Yes, the balance of support may still favor your cherished belief. But you still have to shift the probability down—yes, down—from whatever it was before you heard the contrary evidence. It does no good to rehearse supporting arguments, because you have already taken those into account.
And yet it does appear to me that when people are confronted by a new counterargument, they search for a justification not to downshift their confidence, and of course they find supporting arguments they already know. I have to keep constant vigilance not to do this myself! It feels as natural as parrying a sword-strike with a handy shield.
With the right kind of wrong reasoning, a handful of support—or even a single argument—can stand off an army of contradictions.
Simply put, if you have a probability of 80% positive using three pieces of evidence, and someone presents a counter argument with one piece of evidence, you should downgrade your probability,
even if your evidence still trumps the counterargument.And then, if a second counter argument arises, you need to put your three pieces of evidence (plus the lower probability) up against
both counter arguments. And even if your evidence wins out, you need to downgrade your probability
again.
And so on. You can't put your three pieces of evidence against each counter argument one at a time -- you need to compound the counter arguments each time, and adjust your probabilities.
Many people keep their 80% assurance indefinitely, against all counter arguments, and don't remember to take into account
all evidence against their conclusions. This is one reason it's so hard to change people's minds. And why dogpiling often happens.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/3k/how_to_not_lose_an_argument/
QuoteThere is an unspoken belief in some quarters that the point of an argument is to gain social status by utterly demolishing your opponent's position, thus proving yourself the better thinker. That can be fun sometimes, and if it's really all you want, go for it.
But the most important reason to argue with someone is to change his mind.
If your goal is to absolutely demolish the other person's position, to make him feel awful and worthless - then you are also very unlikely to change his mind or win his understanding. And because our culture of debates and mock trials and real trials and flaming people on Usenet encourages the first type of "winning an argument", there's precious little genuine mind-changing going on.
Don't stop believing that you are right and they are wrong, unless the evidence points that way. But leave it at them being wrong, not them being wrong and stupid and evil.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 25, 2014, 03:59:20 PM
http://lesswrong.com/lw/3k/how_to_not_lose_an_argument/
QuoteThere is an unspoken belief in some quarters that the point of an argument is to gain social status by utterly demolishing your opponent's position, thus proving yourself the better thinker. That can be fun sometimes, and if it's really all you want, go for it.
But the most important reason to argue with someone is to change his mind.
If your goal is to absolutely demolish the other person's position, to make him feel awful and worthless - then you are also very unlikely to change his mind or win his understanding. And because our culture of debates and mock trials and real trials and flaming people on Usenet encourages the first type of "winning an argument", there's precious little genuine mind-changing going on.
Don't stop believing that you are right and they are wrong, unless the evidence points that way. But leave it at them being wrong, not them being wrong and stupid and evil.
OH yes, very much important to be reminding one's self of that.
I Call bullshit - The most important reason to argue with someone is to change one of your minds, otherwise you're not arguing, you're proselytizing
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 26, 2014, 01:41:03 PM
I Call bullshit - The most important reason to argue with someone is to change one of your minds, otherwise you're not arguing, you're proselytizing
Well said!
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 26, 2014, 01:42:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 26, 2014, 01:41:03 PM
I Call bullshit - The most important reason to argue with someone is to change one of your minds, otherwise you're not arguing, you're proselytizing
Well said!
I disagree that you ca't call it arguing if your goal is to change the other's mind. Just because openness to the other's argument is not explicitly stated does not mean it is not acceptable. It is perfectly fine if each person's main goal is to change the other person's mind, your main goal should not be your only goal and definitely not to the exclusion of all else. Only when nothing else is acceptable would i call it proselytizing.
If you want to approach arguing, from a win/lose perspective, then it makes more sense to me to turn the traditional paradigm on it's head.
We're arguing, you convince me I'm wrong - I win (I've just received a software upgrade)
I convince you that you're wrong - You win
Unfortunately, it rarely works out that way on account of primate ego/threat response :kingmeh:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 26, 2014, 02:06:01 PM
If you want to approach arguing, from a win/lose perspective, then it makes more sense to me to turn the traditional paradigm on it's head.
We're arguing, you convince me I'm wrong - I win (I've just received a software upgrade)
I convince you that you're wrong - You win
Unfortunately, it rarely works out that way on account of primate ego/threat response :kingmeh:
I hadn't considered that losing was an option in an argument. And i also hadn't considered the ego/threat response.
Consider that considered and nwo i consider your reversed perspective superior.
Quote from: :regret: on March 26, 2014, 07:34:20 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 26, 2014, 02:06:01 PM
If you want to approach arguing, from a win/lose perspective, then it makes more sense to me to turn the traditional paradigm on it's head.
We're arguing, you convince me I'm wrong - I win (I've just received a software upgrade)
I convince you that you're wrong - You win
Unfortunately, it rarely works out that way on account of primate ego/threat response :kingmeh:
I hadn't considered that losing was an option in an argument. And i also hadn't considered the ego/threat response.
Consider that considered and nwo i consider your reversed perspective superior.
HAHA! I WIN! :lulz:
L O L
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 26, 2014, 09:30:25 PM
Quote from: :regret: on March 26, 2014, 07:34:20 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 26, 2014, 02:06:01 PM
If you want to approach arguing, from a win/lose perspective, then it makes more sense to me to turn the traditional paradigm on it's head.
We're arguing, you convince me I'm wrong - I win (I've just received a software upgrade)
I convince you that you're wrong - You win
Unfortunately, it rarely works out that way on account of primate ego/threat response :kingmeh:
I hadn't considered that losing was an option in an argument. And i also hadn't considered the ego/threat response.
Consider that considered and nwo i consider your reversed perspective superior.
HAHA! I WIN! :lulz:
Yes you did, and without me losing! Congratulations!
Arguments are the confrontation of two diiferent givens and assumptions... so jumping at the opponents yugular prevents one from emphatizing and learning from their perspective... when i engage someone in an argument i WISH theyd provide reasons or evidence to why i am wrong...
Sadly, those reasons are poisoned by self interest or evasion from reality. :roll:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 26, 2014, 02:06:01 PM
If you want to approach arguing, from a win/lose perspective, then it makes more sense to me to turn the traditional paradigm on it's head.
We're arguing, you convince me I'm wrong - I win (I've just received a software upgrade)
I convince you that you're wrong - You win
Unfortunately, it rarely works out that way on account of primate ego/threat response :kingmeh:
That's how I tend to look at it.
I've changed my mind where I was mocked and insulted, because the facts ought to be more important than my poor little fee-fees. The recommendation to use kid gloves when debating seems well-intentioned:
QuoteDon't stop believing that you are right and they are wrong, unless the evidence points that way. But leave it at them being wrong, not them being wrong and stupid and evil.
But the evidence so far doesn't seem to support it. There have been numerous studies (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2013&q=persistence+of+discredited+beliefs&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1) done where people with factually incorrect opinions were shown evidence to the contrary (without any sort of abuse of their character), and what do you know, their beliefs persisted.
Quote from: Net on March 29, 2014, 01:31:42 AM
I've changed my mind where I was mocked and insulted, because the facts ought to be more important than my poor little fee-fees. The recommendation to use kid gloves when debating seems well-intentioned:
QuoteDon't stop believing that you are right and they are wrong, unless the evidence points that way. But leave it at them being wrong, not them being wrong and stupid and evil.
But the evidence so far doesn't seem to support it. There have been numerous studies (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2013&q=persistence+of+discredited+beliefs&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1) done where people with factually incorrect opinions were shown evidence to the contrary (without any sort of abuse of their character), and what do you know, their beliefs persisted.
It sounds like evidence with/without mocking doesn't work either way, so I say we cut out the evidence and just go straight to mocking people who are wrong.
Quote from: Pæs on March 30, 2014, 08:32:04 PM
Quote from: Net on March 29, 2014, 01:31:42 AM
I've changed my mind where I was mocked and insulted, because the facts ought to be more important than my poor little fee-fees. The recommendation to use kid gloves when debating seems well-intentioned:
QuoteDon't stop believing that you are right and they are wrong, unless the evidence points that way. But leave it at them being wrong, not them being wrong and stupid and evil.
But the evidence so far doesn't seem to support it. There have been numerous studies (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2013&q=persistence+of+discredited+beliefs&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1) done where people with factually incorrect opinions were shown evidence to the contrary (without any sort of abuse of their character), and what do you know, their beliefs persisted.
It sounds like evidence with/without mocking doesn't work either way, so I say we cut out the evidence and just go straight to mocking people who are wrong.
A form of "Do What You Will, The Fuckers Won't Listen Anyway"?
...
DWYW,TFWLA is my new mantra.
Incidentally, LMNO, you might want to know that Yvain from LessWrong has his own blog at http://slatestarcodex.com/
It's pretty good, as I'm sure you would expect from him. I knew he was a LessWrongian, but I only figured out Yvain yesterday, when reading the archives.
Bookmarked. Thanks!
I also possibly forgot to mention he references Robert Anton Wilson and JR "Bob" Dobbs infrequently.
A lot of LessWrongians are our kind of people, it seems.
With approximately the same percentage of insufferable twats, it seems.
LMNO
-reads the comments to LessWrong posts.
Quote from: Cain on April 21, 2014, 08:13:17 AM
Incidentally, LMNO, you might want to know that Yvain from LessWrong has his own blog at http://slatestarcodex.com/
It's pretty good, as I'm sure you would expect from him. I knew he was a LessWrongian, but I only figured out Yvain yesterday, when reading the archives.
I just spent one hour learning stuff when i could have been rage-quiting games i don't even enjoy! Damn you Yvain!
Well, this is a fun one. Applicable to the "uncomfortable topics" posts that Nigel, well, Nigels us with.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ww/undiscriminating_skepticism/
QuoteSince it can be cheap and easy to attack everything your tribe doesn't believe, you shouldn't trust the rationality of just anyone who slams astrology and creationism; these beliefs aren't just false, they're also non-tribal among educated audiences. Test what happens when a "skeptic" argues for a non-tribal belief, or argues against a tribal belief, before you decide they're good general rationalists.
Somewhat related to what Scott Alexander wrote here (http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/15/the-cowpox-of-doubt/#rssowlmlink), btw:
QuoteWhat annoys me about the people who harp on moon-hoaxing and homeopathy – without any interest in the rest of medicine or space history – is that it seems like an attempt to Other irrationality.
(yes, I did just use "other" as a verb. Maybe I've been hanging around Continental types too much lately.)
It's saying "Look, over here! It's irrational people, believing things that we can instantly dismiss as dumb. Things we feel no temptation, not one bit, to believe. It must be that they are defective and we are rational."
Ok, in light of some stuff floating around my FB feed, here's a couple of posts that relate to the idea of quantum conciousness; or rather, relate to why quantum conciousness is not necessary for QM to function.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/pe/joint_configurations/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/pf/distinct_configurations/
If I can try to summarize without messing it up too much: This is about how when photons are shot through a sequence of half-silvered mirrors at two detectors, they arrive at each about half the time, as if the mirror "lets" the photon through half the time, and reflects it the other half. But that's not really what's going on.
QM uses something called "configurations" which are, essentially, a "state of the system" calculation. It is not linear, all the calculations occur simultaneously, and include all parameters. When calculating the configuration "detector 1 gets a photon", it has the same value as "detector 2 gets a photon." So when you run the experiment, you get results equally from 1 and 2.
If you set up a few more mirrors, you now have four configurations to calculate. Of course, the configurations now need to take the added mirrors into account in their calculations. And as it turns out, two of these configurations effectively cancel each other out and give you an answer of zero for the photon arriving at detector 2. Which means when you run the experiment, you only get results from detector 1.
Weird, but the math works, so it kind of makes sense.
Ok, now lets get crazy, and fire
two photons into a mirrored array from two different directions. You could end up with two photons at detector 1, two photons at detector 2, or one at each. Your configurations now must include
both photons, in addition to the mirrored array, and you once again have four calculations to make. And again, two of the calculations cancel each other out, which means when you run the experiment, you'll have either two at 1, or two at 2, but never one at each.
This is where it really starts differentiating itself from classical mechanics. If you were in a linear framework, you would calulate a "one at each" result as a 50% probability. But since we're doing configurations, we get a different answer.
Ok, here we go. We want to see when a photon is going in a certain path, so we put a sensor at a certain point, which changes state when a photon zooms by. But remember, your configuration has to take into account everything going on, and that
includes the sensor. So when you calculate your configurations, the two that canceled out before no longer do, because one of them now has the sensor. So when you run the experiment, you're now seeing what you'd expect in classical mehanics.
And those calculations are true, even if we don't bother to look at whether the sensor changed state as when we run the experiment.
So, run the previous experiment, and you get a weird result. Add a detector to see what's going on, the weird result goes away.
Take it away, Elizer...
QuoteI mean, now how crazy is that? What kind of paranoia does that inspire in some poor scientist?
Okay, so in the 21st century we realize in order to "know" a photon's history, the particles making up your brain have to be correlated with the photon's history. If having a tiny little sensitive thingy S that correlates to the photon's history, is enough to distinguish the final configurations and prevent the amplitude flows from canceling; then an entire sensor with a digital display, never mind a human brain, will put septillions of particles in different positions and prevent the amplitude flows from canceling.
But if you hadn't worked that out yet...
Then you would ponder the sensor having banished the Mysterious Phenomenon, and think:
The photon doesn't just want to be physically free to go either way. It's not a little wave going along an unblocked pathway, because then just having a physically unblocked pathway would be enough.
No... I'm not allowed to know which way the photon went.
The mysterious phenomenon... doesn't want me looking at it too closely... while it's doing its mysterious thing.
It's not physical possibilities that have an effect on reality... only epistemic possibilities. If I know which way the photon went, it's no longer plausible that it went the other way... which cuts off the mysterious phenomenon as effectively as putting a block between the mirrors.
I have to not observe which way the photon went, in order for it to always end up at Detector 2. It has to be reasonable that the photon could have gone to either mirror. What I can know is the determining factor, regardless of which physical paths I leave open or closed.
STOP THE PRESSES! MIND IS FUNDAMENTAL AFTER ALL! CONSCIOUS AWARENESS DETERMINES OUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS!
You can still read this kind of stuff. In physics textbooks. Even now, when a majority of theoretical physicists know better. Stop the presses. Please, stop the presses.
So, hope that helps.
That was very confusing.
I think I understood the essence of it though.
Is the effect of the sensor the same as the effect of the mirror when making the calculations?
Because if that is the case you could replace mirrors with sensors, keeping the calculations the same. That should reinstate the 2 photons at detector 1 XOR 2 photons at detector 2, but never 1 at each.
Is my thinking anywhere close to reality?
It's not so much they're the "same", it's that the sensor needs to be taken into account. So, while before you had two identical calculations canceling out, now you have two different calculations.
The LW post explains it more thoroughly, but check it:
(http://lesswrong.com/static/imported/2008/04/08/fig2.gif)
Without the sensor, the photon can go
A -> B -> D -> Detector E
A -> B -> D -> Detector F
or
A -> C -> D -> Detector E
A -> C -> D -> Detector F
When you do the calculations and combine all results of Detector E, you get Zero.
When you do the calculations and combine all results of Detector F, you get Two.
(the math is more complicated, and involves
i, but the general point is the same. If you want confirmation, read the actual article)
So, your experimental result is that you get no photons detected at E.
Now, for the sensor:
(http://lesswrong.com/static/imported/2008/04/11/fig5_2.gif)
So, taking the sensor into account:
A -> B -> D -> Detector E [sensor NO]
A -> B -> D -> Detector F [sensor NO]
A -> C -> D -> Detector E [sensor YES]
A -> C -> D -> Detector F [sensor YES]
This time, when you do the calculations, the addition of the sensor state means that when you combine the results for detector E, they
don't cancel out. Therefore, you'll see photons at both detectors equally.
Elizer again:
QuoteConfigurations are not belief states. Their distinctness is an objective fact with experimental consequences. The configurations are distinct even if no one knows the state of S; distinct even if no intelligent entity can ever find out. The configurations are distinct so long as at least one particle in the universe anywhere is in a different position. This is experimentally demonstrable.
Which is to say: your conciousness, what you believe, has absolutely no impact on configurations. The configuration is like a barstool. It exists, regardless of what you think about it.
I think I get it, thanks.
Probability and mankind's inability to make accurate estimates of probability bites us in the ass again.
I should read the LW post, but i'm not feeling up to it at the moment.