It blows my mind how a fucking neuroscientist who can literally spend all day listing cognitive biases and all the biological methods by which people reinforce their own beliefs even in the face of contradictory evidence can be so hilariously self-unaware about his own. To say nothing of his followers.
i don't think his neuroscience work has anything to do with cognitive biases, if he goes on about that stuff it's probably from peeps like dennett
i've never been quite clear on what harris does or did in neuro. something about fMRI (pish posh) and making people lie? it really doesn't help that there's a Sam Harris at the university of sheffield who works on neurovascular coupling in epilepsy who I'm only mostly sure isn't the same guy
When you treat irrationality like something you can dispel by knowing the true name of, you become even more vulnerable to it.
See: Less Wrong
this reminded me of a time on TVT, in Writer's Block
someone was looking for advice on how to write the development of a Less Wrong-style rationalist civilization, and they were stuck because they believed a civilization like that would never develop any cultural traditions because following traditions is irrational and fallacious
When you treat irrationality like something you can dispel by knowing the true name of, you become even more vulnerable to it.
See: Less Wrong
this reminded me of a time on TVT, in Writer's Block
someone was looking for advice on how to write the development of a Less Wrong-style rationalist civilization, and they were stuck because they believed a civilization like that would never develop any cultural traditions because following traditions is irrational and fallacious
When you treat irrationality like something you can dispel by knowing the true name of, you become even more vulnerable to it.
See: Less Wrong
this reminded me of a time on TVT, in Writer's Block
someone was looking for advice on how to write the development of a Less Wrong-style rationalist civilization, and they were stuck because they believed a civilization like that would never develop any cultural traditions because following traditions is irrational and fallacious
And the sad thing is that when LW finally DID become cognizant of traditions not necessarily being irrational and fallacious, they did it because a bunch of obnoxious racist nerds convinced them of this being the case and this is why game theory dictates we need a king who will reinstate dueling and slavery.
as long as nerds on the internet are trying to bring back dubious and defunct cultural practices i would like to jump on the wagon with a strong pro-weregild stance
i like weregild because it sounds like it's werewolf related, so when you look up the etymology you're disappointed, but then the meaning is so ridiculous and cruel anyway that it works out
Not really? Like in Harry Potter, people don't say Voldemort because they're so scared of him that they're afraid saying his name will bring him back. Some of the wiser characters think this is bad, because it gives him undo power, and prevents them from seeing the situation clearly.
Whereas with the LW crowd, they know about all the various biases and fallacies, but they don't treat them as things they have to be on guard for, or checking for them to be important. Yudkowsky has talked about a vulgarized version of Wittgenstein's dissolving metaphysical problems, so they are now immune to falling into empty constructions of reason, even as they build vast edifices built around things like "memeplexes" and "Moloch" and "meta-level insights" that aren't remotely subject to the hardheaded empiricist skepticism they claim to champion.
Whereas with the LW crowd, they know about all the various biases and fallacies, but they don't treat them as things they have to be on guard for, or checking for them to be important. Yudkowsky has talked about a vulgarized version of Wittgenstein's dissolving metaphysical problems, so they are now immune to falling into empty constructions of reason, even as they build vast edifices built around things like "memeplexes" and "Moloch" and "meta-level insights" that aren't remotely subject to the hardheaded empiricist skepticism they claim to champion.
one of the worst parts of medieval life was the "heriot"
This law and many others, such as the noble right not to pay taxes, have a long and contentious history in Europe. It was legally abolished in Britain in 1922.
ye olden days, when flappers roamed the streets and
"Oh fuck, that old stupid family feud about the goddamn horse flared up again, guess I'm gonna have to pay the Blue Jay clan, like, 50 cows to keep them from raiding me AGAIN, that horse was not worth this, you dudes are lucky I don't exile the lot of you"
Not really? Like in Harry Potter, people don't say Voldemort because they're so scared of him that they're afraid saying his name will bring him back. Some of the wiser characters think this is bad, because it gives him undo power, and prevents them from seeing the situation clearly.
And then in the last book you find out saying his name really was a bad idea for very concrete reasons, and the people who "saw things clearly" got wiped out because they were surprisingly bad at pattern recognition.
Harry got so used to casually saying Voldemort's name out of righteous bravado that he almost got them all killed on more than one occasion -- including once when he slipped up after already knowing the name had a spell on it.
"Oh fuck, that old stupid family feud about the goddamn horse flared up again, guess I'm gonna have to pay the Blue Jay clan, like, 50 cows to keep them from raiding me AGAIN, that horse was not worth this, you dudes are lucky I don't exile the lot of you"
Not really? Like in Harry Potter, people don't say Voldemort because they're so scared of him that they're afraid saying his name will bring him back. Some of the wiser characters think this is bad, because it gives him undo power, and prevents them from seeing the situation clearly.
And then in the last book you find out saying his name really was a bad idea for very concrete reasons, and the people who "saw things clearly" got wiped out because they were surprisingly bad at pattern recognition.
Harry got so used to casually saying Voldemort's name out of righteous bravado that he almost got them all killed on more than one occasion -- including once when he slipped up after already knowing the name had a spell on it.
Not really? Like in Harry Potter, people don't say Voldemort because they're so scared of him that they're afraid saying his name will bring him back. Some of the wiser characters think this is bad, because it gives him undo power, and prevents them from seeing the situation clearly.
Book 7 spoilers, but saying his name alerts and summons the Death Eaters, because Voldemort realizes that the people who dare say it are most likely to be people who will rebel against him
so the analogy is, "now that we know the name of this fallacy we have nothing to worry about" except actually it makes them more prone to it, not less
Not really? Like in Harry Potter, people don't say Voldemort because they're so scared of him that they're afraid saying his name will bring him back. Some of the wiser characters think this is bad, because it gives him undo power, and prevents them from seeing the situation clearly.
And then in the last book you find out saying his name really was a bad idea for very concrete reasons, and the people who "saw things clearly" got wiped out because they were surprisingly bad at pattern recognition.
Harry got so used to casually saying Voldemort's name out of righteous bravado that he almost got them all killed on more than one occasion -- including once when he slipped up after already knowing the name had a spell on it.
i thought the concrete reason was some magic tracker bullshit. i know metaphor stretch when i see it babe
"Oh fuck, that old stupid family feud about the goddamn horse flared up again, guess I'm gonna have to pay the Blue Jay clan, like, 50 cows to keep them from raiding me AGAIN, that horse was not worth this, you dudes are lucky I don't exile the lot of you"
this is realistic which is fucking hilarious if you're good with human sorrow like me
Not really? Like in Harry Potter, people don't say Voldemort because they're so scared of him that they're afraid saying his name will bring him back. Some of the wiser characters think this is bad, because it gives him undo power, and prevents them from seeing the situation clearly.
Book 7 spoilers, but saying his name alerts and summons the Death Eaters, because Voldemort realizes that the people who dare say it are most likely to be people who will rebel against him
so the analogy is, "now that we know the name of this fallacy we have nothing to worry about" except actually it makes them more prone to it, not less
It didn't just alert them. You accidentally all your protections while saying it too.
Not really? Like in Harry Potter, people don't say Voldemort because they're so scared of him that they're afraid saying his name will bring him back. Some of the wiser characters think this is bad, because it gives him undo power, and prevents them from seeing the situation clearly.
And then in the last book you find out saying his name really was a bad idea for very concrete reasons, and the people who "saw things clearly" got wiped out because they were surprisingly bad at pattern recognition.
Harry got so used to casually saying Voldemort's name out of righteous bravado that he almost got them all killed on more than one occasion -- including once when he slipped up after already knowing the name had a spell on it.
i thought the concrete reason was some magic tracker bullshit. i know metaphor stretch when i see it babe
"Oh fuck, that old stupid family feud about the goddamn horse flared up again, guess I'm gonna have to pay the Blue Jay clan, like, 50 cows to keep them from raiding me AGAIN, that horse was not worth this, you dudes are lucky I don't exile the lot of you"
this is realistic which is fucking hilarious if you're good with human sorrow like me
it's not impossible to gain more control over one's emotions (as in cognitive behavioural therapy, for instance) but learning to spot fallacies doesn't magic emotions away
I'm pretty sure that at this point, someone could post ""I adore cake"-Michel Foucault" and people would respond with "typical obtuse postmodernist obscurantism, utterly meaningless of course"
Comments
i've never been quite clear on what harris does or did in neuro. something about fMRI (pish posh) and making people lie? it really doesn't help that there's a Sam Harris at the university of sheffield who works on neurovascular coupling in epilepsy who I'm only mostly sure isn't the same guy
this reminded me of a time on TVT, in Writer's Block
someone was looking for advice on how to write the development of a Less Wrong-style rationalist civilization, and they were stuck because they believed a civilization like that would never develop any cultural traditions because following traditions is irrational and fallacious
it's not quite as dumb but, like, heriot. heriotheriotheriotheriot
ugh wrong term. dammit james
so the analogy is, "now that we know the name of this fallacy we have nothing to worry about" except actually it makes them more prone to it, not less
in the earlier war, there was no spell on the name
i don't think it's dumb, i think it makes sense, since it was only after Voldemort's initial tyranny that his name became taboo
i think i would remember
how is it possible to get by with reading comprehension this bad?