curi blog comments http://curi.us/comments/recent Explanations for the curious en-us A hero's journey Augustine Social Metaphysics
What is the basis of what should be interpreted? Saying it is reasonable or rational could mean many things. What about the author of the song's intended meaning?

>What would he do if society said to him, "We don't want you to slay the monster. We want you to go take a photo of the monster then come home. We'll cheer and praise you for that. Do that and you have a place here, we'll accept you. But if you slay the monster, we'll boo you and reject you."

This doesn't make sense because the monster the hero is meant to slay is not something you take a picture and ignore. These stories are usually metaphors for real problems, the hero goes out to slay the dragon and bring back the gold is not a literal dragon nor literal gold. So the idea that he'd take a picture of said dragon and come back for social recognition doesn't make sense.

The idea is to go out and deal with the problem head-on, otherwise, these problems will become monstrous and unsurmountable. This is why the titans were heading toward the city to destroy it. IIRC

Think about it in modern terms. If you have a bill to pay, it is a tiny problem. If you ignore it, pretty soon it becomes a huge monster. Bill collectors, possible jail time, etc... It is best to tackle this problem head on right away, slay the dragon while he's in his cave vs when it comes to get you instead.

This is something Peterson advocates for btw. It is why he's not "pandering to the masses." He's actually saying things that are meaningful and important. Which is why there is endless stories of people "sorting themselves out" and dealing with their problems. Slaying their own dragons and getting the rewards. Such as getting off drugs, getting jobs and starting families etc... These are real results, unlike what a snake oil salesman would give you.

I think this interpretation tied with the context of the movie and our understanding of archetypal stories is more reasonable an interpretation than the equivalent of just getting likes on Instagram or something. Would you say that's basically what your interpretation comes down to?]]>
Tue, 12 Nov 2019 16:56:06 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14302 http://curi.us/comments/show/14302
curi Social Metaphysics
E.g. suppose Joe interpreted the song as saying that Trump should buy a helicopter. That's a false interpretation. The song doesn't say that.

Songs and other texts are often ambiguous. In that case, the correct interpretation is to say it's ambiguous: It could mean X, Y or Z but not A, B or C.

>> You see the song as very roughly: he wants to go slay a monster and then go home and be valued for it. Right?

> That is roughly how I interpret it yes.

What would he do if society said to him, "We don't want you to slay the monster. We want you to go take a photo of the monster then come home. We'll cheer and praise you for that. Do that and you have a place here, we'll accept you. But if you slay the monster, we'll boo you and reject you."]]>
Tue, 12 Nov 2019 12:43:26 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14301 http://curi.us/comments/show/14301
curi Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
https://twitter.com/curi42/status/1193355932937244673

Is there a reason you think that post is important or some specific ideas in it that you want comments on?]]>
Tue, 12 Nov 2019 11:36:47 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14300 http://curi.us/comments/show/14300
Anonymous Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
https://medium.com/@clovisroussy/why-bayesianism-fails-8544eefa2bef

(not mine)]]>
Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:33:46 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14299 http://curi.us/comments/show/14299
Augustine Social Metaphysics
Similar but not quite the same. An interpretation can't be falsified. Let's say someone said (assuming they are genuine and not lying) that they interpret the song lyrics to mean finding the career they are the best fit to. Or someone interprets the lyrics to mean finding true love or something. You can't say these are false interpretations because it is how *they* interpreted it.

> You see the song as very roughly: he wants to go slay a monster and then go home and be valued for it. Right?

That is roughly how I interpret it yes. In addition, he wants a place that will accept him as he is because he is currently rejected for being so different.]]>
Tue, 12 Nov 2019 09:34:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14298 http://curi.us/comments/show/14298
curi Social Metaphysics
Part of this issue is the standard: context matters. That means the right answer is "relative" to the context. I agree context should be taken into account. But the actual context doesn't change by person. There's just the one movie. My knowledge of the context is different than yours, just as my knowledge of reality, philosophical methods, and more, is different than yours. But if I miss something due to not knowing a piece of context, you can point it out and correct me, rather than us simply being stuck disagreeing (and vice versa).

One of the important principles for analyzing texts conclusively is a correct interpretation must account for every paragraph, every sentence, every word. We can go into further detail as needed to find places where some interpretations fail.

I think a good place to start, which is more of an overview, is:

You see the song as very roughly: he wants to go slay a monster and then go home and be valued for it. Right? I have a short argument to follow. Also let me know if some of the above doesn't make sense to you.]]>
Tue, 12 Nov 2019 01:00:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14297 http://curi.us/comments/show/14297
N Social Metaphysics
Re context: I think that both the movie & the lyrics are as curi describe the lyrics. It is conformity in both.

Have you read *The Fountainhead*? I'm guessing not, based on the interaction w J in th OP. Correct?

Are you somewhat familiar with Ayn Rand's concept of *second-handedness* through other sources?

If neither, getting familiar with this I think will give you context of where many ppl here come from re social & conformity.

Checking these links could be useful in if one is not familiar with SH:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/second-handers.html

https://courses.aynrand.org/works/the-nature-of-the-second-hander/

http://justinmallone.com/2019/01/objectivism-part-ii-second-handedness/]]>
Mon, 11 Nov 2019 23:21:03 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14296 http://curi.us/comments/show/14296
Augustine Social Metaphysics

I think if you had the context of the movie too you might see it closer to my POV, maybe not. There is no way to say your interpretation is false though. but yea ignoring context makes little sense imo.

Look at these lyrics: https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/weeknd/lostinthefire.html

Could you, without context, find the reference to the artist Drake there? Without context, I don't think you could find it.



This seems off track from my initial argument of making a true Statement P, and present it well.

I don't see how an analysis of a song gets us any closer to the truth. If I were to convince you that my interpretation is better, it would not change your mind about my argument. And neither would it change mine if you convinced me your interpretation is better. If anything, it would support my argument that learning how to present something is important too, not just what is presented.]]>
Mon, 11 Nov 2019 18:33:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14295 http://curi.us/comments/show/14295
curi Social Metaphysics
I gave some explanation of why it's correct. You haven't argued with my text about the lyrics nor changed your mind. I think the next step is for that to happen.]]>
Mon, 11 Nov 2019 18:06:03 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14294 http://curi.us/comments/show/14294
Augustine Social Metaphysics
Also btw, my interpretation of the lyrics is closer to what actually happened in the movie than your interpretation. Idk if that helps in any way.]]>
Mon, 11 Nov 2019 17:24:27 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14293 http://curi.us/comments/show/14293
Anonymous Productive Global Warming Discussion
And Yes.]]>
Mon, 11 Nov 2019 15:19:06 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14292 http://curi.us/comments/show/14292
oh my god it's turpentine Productive Global Warming Discussion
https://askepticalhuman.com/science/2019/3/16/debunking-climate-change-model-predictions-are-unreliable

So if this article is refuted would the OP concede that his position has been refuted?]]>
Mon, 11 Nov 2019 15:05:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14291 http://curi.us/comments/show/14291
Anonymous Productive Global Warming Discussion Mon, 11 Nov 2019 13:23:38 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14290 http://curi.us/comments/show/14290 curi Social Metaphysics
Also I think we should focus on one thing at a time more.

I think you interpret the song as they want to accomplish something and then also get social recognition for their accomplishment.

I read the song as saying they want social recognition as their goal, not as a side effect.

>> I would go most anywhere
>> To feel like I belong
>
> I will find my way to me means he will look to overcome any obstacles in his adventure. If he has the strength to endure any difficulties, in the end, it will be worth it. He will do what it takes to earn that welcoming embrace he is looking for. Very inspiring.

I read this as saying he will do things other than overcoming obstacles in order to get the belonging feeling. He'll do more or less anything for it. He would also e.g. give up on a goal if that's what society wanted. Or he'd believe Christianity instead of atheism in order to fit in. His priority is on conformity and he isn't willing to stand up to society's preferences about him.

He'd rationalize anything, blind himself to any truth, if that would get people to cheer and smile when they see him.

He doesn't have a specific goal. He isn't e.g. a painter. His goal isn't to make his paintings so beautiful that he earns recognition that way. His goal is to do anything to be socially accepted – he's putting that ahead of career goals. Other people's approval is his first priority.]]>
Mon, 11 Nov 2019 13:17:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14289 http://curi.us/comments/show/14289
Kate Social Metaphysics
>Why would being friendly give out red flags,

I said that being skilled at small talk should raise red flags. (I state some reasons that small talk is bad below.) Why did you imply that I said something much broader than what I had said?

>In the present scenario, interpreting condescension is honestly rather strange to me.

How should your words be interpreted? Why did you write "curi I gotta say"? (Both parts -- his name and the "I gotta say")

> Btw, people find small talk useless(social or otherwise), it is a common trope on tv shows, movies, etc... "I hate small talk" is a common thing people say.

Yes, but I don't think they hate it because it's socially useless, which is what you initially said. They rightly hate it because it's fake and it requires a huge mental strain and an orientation to what other people are thinking.

> Also, socialization is a good thing, it lets you work with others and cooperation is a good thing.

I think cooperation and communication with others are good. But I think you can have those things without e.g. being charismatic and skilled at small talk.

> So you're worried about how I presented my argument, not the argument itself. Which funny enough, supports my position that learning presenting skills is important because if you're right, I came off as condescending.

If I'm right, you came off as condescending and you didn't consciously know that you were doing that. Subconsciously, *you were considering factors other than the argument itself* in choosing which words to write.

This is different than someone who only cares about the content of his argument and his ability to state it clearly to other truth-seeking minds, and as a result he doesn’t make a socially-appropriate amount of eye contact during his presentation. Here his mind is in the right place. A socially-appropriate amount of eye contact doesn’t matter. In contrast, with you (and most ppl, including myself sometimes), your mind was not in the right place (if I’m right in my suspicion). And that’s *why* you wrote e.g. “curi I gotta say”.

Pointing out when we suspect that others are writing things for social reasons is a step towards helping people learn to catch themselves doing this. Then, they can switch focus and turn their mind solely to improving the content of their argument.]]>
Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:58:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14288 http://curi.us/comments/show/14288
Social Rules that Demand Less Clarity Andy Dufresne Social Metaphysics >>> What social rule demands points to be made less clear?

>> They mostly don't have names. An example is you're often supposed to say "I think" or some other hedge. I don't want to discuss an example of that first because it's too subtle and complicated. The Disney song is easier to analyze and is a better thing to try. You have to work your way up to analyze really subtle, complex human action.

> curi I gotta say I am not satisfied with this response. I'll try to explain why. You said that certain social rules **demand** points to be made less clear. I don't think that saying "I think" is a social rule, and more importantly, I do not understand how it makes a pointless clear. If I state, "I think P is true" or "I am confident P is true" or simply "P is true." I do not get how "I think" makes P any less clear.

For example consider the situation: You're at work. It's the designated "bring your kid to work" day. One of your colleagues brings his kid. Kid says he doesn't want to be there, is bored. Colleague says too bad, you gotta learn about the real world. Kid starts running around the office. Colleague yells at his kid to sit down and shut up. Kid tries to type on a computer, colleague yells at him not to touch anything.

P is "My colleague is being a total jerk to his kid. If this is any indication, he's a bad parent."

Social rules require P to be made very much less clear. Even adding "I think" or "In my opinion" to P isn't near enough. You're supposed to not say anything at all. If you do say something, you're supposed to be really indirect and suggest some alternative rather than comment directly on his parenting. Something that bears little resemblance to P, like "Hey, maybe your kid would like to have a look around the server room."

Socially, you're just basically never supposed to tell a colleague directly that he's a bad parent. Even if you think it. Even if it's true.

If it rose to the level of abuse where you thought the cops would do something then you are supposed to call the cops. Otherwise, you're not supposed to say he's a bad parent.]]>
Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:22:43 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14287 http://curi.us/comments/show/14287
Anonymous Productive Global Warming Discussion Mon, 11 Nov 2019 10:33:38 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14286 http://curi.us/comments/show/14286 Bit confusing. Augustine Social Metaphysics

Why would being friendly give out red flags, Why would addressing someone by their name be condescending? This seems quite different and at odds with how most people behave. I suppose depending on heavily on context and tone of voice, using someone's name could be interpreted as condescending. In the present scenario, interpreting condescension is honestly rather strange to me.

Btw, people find small talk useless(social or otherwise), it is a common trope on tv shows, movies, etc... "I hate small talk" is a common thing people say. However, I think it serves a functional purpose beyond socialization. Also, socialization is a good thing, it lets you work with others and cooperation is a good thing. You seem to be hostile to it. I actually enjoy meeting new people and learning about their stories. This seems very off-topic to me though but it is a branch of the conversation I guess I began by my response to anon, but he was talking about a mistake in the argument I presented. You seem to be arguing based on an interpretation of my response to curi. So you're worried about how I presented my argument, not the argument itself. Which funny enough, supports my position that learning presenting skills is important because if you're right, I came off as condescending.

I'll try to remember that you find being addressed by your name as condescending but that was not the intention. I don't mind being accommodating a bit to people's personal preferences within reason. But being condescending towards curi makes no sense, he has far more experience doing this than I have. This is a learning experience for me, but with that in mind I did find his answer unsatisfactory, and curi prefers honesty so I said so.

I am not sure if I am supposed to respond to someone when they veer this far off from the topic of discussion. I am still new at this. My approach is probably wrong in multiple ways.]]>
Mon, 11 Nov 2019 10:17:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14285 http://curi.us/comments/show/14285
Kate Social Metaphysics
...in a context such as this one where you are already directly talking to the person.

Writing from a third-person perspective, which could involve you stating your view of the situation to an audience, e.g. "curi then said X.", would be different.]]>
Mon, 11 Nov 2019 07:45:05 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14284 http://curi.us/comments/show/14284
Kate Social Metaphysics
> I think people underestimate things like "small talk" as socially useless, but I disagree.

*Do* people think that small talk is socially useless? I wouldn’t have thought that. It’s in the social realm that small talk serves a purpose.

> I think it says a lot about the person,

Yeah. If someone is skilled at small talk, there should be some red flags going up in your mind.

> it is like a practice run on whether this person has some level of competence in his abilities to socialize.

Why does that matter to you?

>>> What social rule demands points to be made less clear?

>> They mostly don't have names. An example is you're often supposed to say "I think" or some other hedge. I don't want to discuss an example of that first because it's too subtle and complicated. The Disney song is easier to analyze and is a better thing to try. You have to work your way up to analyze really subtle, complex human action.

> curi I gotta say I am not satisfied with this response.

Why did you start your sentence with “curi I gotta say”?

Words such as these often serve a social purpose. Starting a sentence with someone’s name adds a touch of condescension. And then the “I gotta say” conveys something like you’d prefer to not have to say this, but you can’t let this pass. Whatever has happened has crossed a line where you gotta come out and say the thing. It’s *that* bad (or good).]]>
Mon, 11 Nov 2019 07:12:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14283 http://curi.us/comments/show/14283
Anonymous Social Metaphysics Sun, 10 Nov 2019 16:44:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14282 http://curi.us/comments/show/14282 Formatting got messed up Augustine Social Metaphysics Sun, 10 Nov 2019 16:38:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14281 http://curi.us/comments/show/14281 Augustine Social Metaphysics > You're mixing social-only and functional issues. This makes discussion positions less clear. Mumbling means it's hard to hear the words being said. Staring at the floor can mean not pointing your mouth towards the mic, and therefore also being hard to hear, but it depends on setup.

I don't think I am necessarily mixing them up because I don't think they are necessarily as separate as you might think.
The mumbling example is pretty clear cut. But other behaviors go beyond just being social-only and also have functional utility. As humans are social creatures we have learned certain behaviors to display the information we may not even be conscious of. When you extend your hand for a hand-shake is this social only? Well maybe, it may also tell you a lot of functional information, show that you are not holding a weapon, show that you have an understanding of social interactions and are competent. Are your hands clammy? Maybe you're nervous, why? Should I not trust you? Etc...

I think people underestimate things like "small talk" as socially useless, but I disagree. I think it says a lot about the person, it is like a practice run on whether this person has some level of competence in his abilities to socialize.

The line between functional and social only is blurry.

[#14268](http://curi.us/2236-social-metaphysics#14268)
>> What social rule demands points to be made less clear?

>They mostly don't have names. An example is you're often supposed to say "I think" or some other hedge. I don't want to discuss an example of that first because it's too subtle and complicated. The Disney song is easier to analyze and is a better thing to try. You have to work your way up to analyze really subtle, complex human action.

curi I gotta say I am not satisfied with this response. I'll try to explain why. You said that certain social rules **demand** points to be made less clear. I don't think that saying "I think" is a social rule, and more importantly, I do not understand how it makes a pointless clear. If I state, "I think P is true" or "I am confident P is true" or simply "P is true." I do not get how "I think" makes P any less clear.

My attempt to analyze and give my honest opinion of these lyrics:
[https://www.lyricsmania.com/go_the_distance_lyrics_disney.html](https://www.lyricsmania.com/go_the_distance_lyrics_disney.html)

My first impression is a positive one. The person in this song is going on their hero's journey. They will go the distance to me means they will work hard until they reach their goal.

>I have often dreamed
Of a far-off place
Where a great warm welcome
>Will be waiting for me

This person is looking for a place (or perhaps a state of mind) where they feel welcomed for who they are.

> Where the crowds will cheer
When they see my face
And a voice keeps saying
This is where I'm meant to be

It looks like this person wants some social recognition and feels he is meant to have it.
>I will find my way
I can go the distance
I'll be there someday
If I can be strong
I know ev'ry mile
Will be worth my while
I would go most anywhere
To feel like I belong

I will find my way to me means he will look to overcome any obstacles in his adventure. If he has the strength to endure any difficulties, in the end, it will be worth it. He will do what it takes to earn that welcoming embrace he is looking for. Very inspiring.

>I will beat the odds
I can go the distance
I will face the world
Fearless, proud, and strong
I will please the gods
I can go the distance
Till I find my hero's welcome
Right where I belong

The place he is going is difficult, beat the odds means the chances are not good, but he is willing to face them without fear, with pride and strength. Please the gods, sounds superstitious but it could be interpreted as pleasing his highest values. He will earn his place, through his hero's journey.

After analyzing the lyrics I looked up the song, I enjoyed it. It is for the movie Hercules, which indeed is about a hero's journey to earn his place among the Gods. He has to work hard and face many hardships but eventually, he overcomes them.

It contains many archetypes of the hero's journey, touched by darkness, too much hubris, has to go to the underworld and rescue something of value, returns triumphantly.

This adds context to the lyrics. I would then change what I said about superstitious, but I was right that he is looking to please his highest value, eg a place among the gods.]]>
Sun, 10 Nov 2019 16:36:23 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14280 http://curi.us/comments/show/14280
curi Discussion Trees With Example
I tried xmind (like omni you can import from a markdown list and lose formatting but keep your nesting structure) but don't like the spacing it generated and it doesn't have many features or much control over spacing.

I might end up putting up with Omnigraffle. Best option currently. I can import to Outliner from a markdown bullet point list outline, lose formatting, import straight to Graffle (lose formatting again), and then get an OK output without individually editing nodes and then export to svg. So I'll stick to almost entirely plain text with this approach.

I've done some trees in Affinity Designer and it's too much work laying everything out manually for a big tree with a lot of nodes. I think any kind of freeform art program isn't going to satisfy me for trees where I write a lot of text.

SimpleMind doesn't seem to even do trees, only maps with the root node in the middle and branches going to both sides. Xmind defaulted that way but let you change the structure.

Taking suggestions.]]>
Sun, 10 Nov 2019 16:09:32 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14279 http://curi.us/comments/show/14279
curi Discussion Trees With Example
If you want to e.g. write an outline in a markdown file then get it imported, or export a tree back to markdown, then stay away.

It's like a rich text editor with all the typical problems.

OmniGraffle can't import text files but OmniOutliner can. But it can't import e.g. italics or bold from my Ulysses docs. And it can export plain text that works in Uylsses but with formatting lost.

I manually fixed some bold and italics in Outliner after importing. Then I imported into Graffle and it lost the bold and italics when importing from their own app into their own app. I also had to spend a while getting the imported doc to be usable at all, e.g. it defaulted to text overflowing out of the rectangles around it. And lots of minor hassles I didn't go into. Still better than most of the mindmapping and diagramming apps out there.]]>
Sun, 10 Nov 2019 14:29:03 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14278 http://curi.us/comments/show/14278
curi Social Metaphysics
![](https://curi.us/files/diagrams/Augustine Social Metaphysics v1.svg)]]>
Sun, 10 Nov 2019 13:15:29 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14277 http://curi.us/comments/show/14277
Anonymous Productive Global Warming Discussion Sun, 10 Nov 2019 11:04:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14276 http://curi.us/comments/show/14276 Howard Roark Social Metaphysics
After winning the Nobel prize, Richard Feynman got lots of non-physicists at his public lectures. Then if he talked advanced physics (like he wanted to), they wouldn't understand and would have a bad time. This was a problem for him caused by social prestige. (He complained that he got the prize without his consent; he had no opportunity to decline it privately.)

And say you get a bigger audience with charisma. Then someone wants to debate you. You gotta wonder: does he actually care about truth-seeking debate or does he want to be seen by my large audience and get more fans? Same problem if you ask someone to debate, it's hard to tell why they're accepting. So you end up wasting time debating with people of lower quality, who are less interested in the truth, because it's harder to get accurate info about who wants to debate you in a good way for good reasons.]]>
Sun, 10 Nov 2019 11:02:40 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14275 http://curi.us/comments/show/14275
Anonymous Social Metaphysics
You're mixing social-only and functional issues. This makes discussion positions less clear. Mumbling means it's hard to hear the words being said. Staring at the floor can mean not pointing your mouth towards the mic, and therefore also being hard to hear, but it depends on setup.]]>
Sun, 10 Nov 2019 10:46:53 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14274 http://curi.us/comments/show/14274
N Social Metaphysics
Does this imply first looking at social skills and if those are deemed sufficient enough *only then* bother with the argument?
If so, is that a rational truth seeking approach?
To me this looks like something like *appeal to authority* (the authority in this case being social skill).

I want to make clear that I do not argue against social having a bigger reach in today's society.

>> How does added charisma help in truth seeking? It does not make something more true. It will _only_ add people who did not understand P but liked the charisma instead.

> I never said charisma helps with truth seeking. I was very clear to make truth seeking and presenting a truth as seperate things.

I was unclear and sloppy. I was referring to the rational truth seeking part of the reader / listener / audience, not the presenter of P, with this comment.
What is the reason that the audience is there in the first place? Is it rational truth seeking? Is it enjoyment of listening to people presenting stuff? Are they coerced to be there (e.g. school)? Is it something else?

> I did not claim that being charismatic makes something truer.

True. I am trying to understand what you think charisma adds. I think you are saying that charisma adds reach. Is that correct?
Do you think it adds something more than reach?

Btw: I am assuming that you are *not* talking about a lack of being able to present P with solid logical steps and arguments, but rather that you mean that one does it socially awkwardly.
I do think that one needs to be able to present P so that it can be understood step by step.
If this is a misunderstanding from my part, do tell me.

Side note and open question:
I charisma only a form of pandering?]]>
Sun, 10 Nov 2019 00:28:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14273 http://curi.us/comments/show/14273
Debunking: "Climate Change Model Predictions Are Unreliable!" Anonymous Productive Global Warming Discussion Sun, 10 Nov 2019 00:17:17 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14272 http://curi.us/comments/show/14272 Augustine Social Metaphysics
>> What I am arguing for is that I think it is important to learn that charisma, at least well enough to give your ideas a good chance of being heard.

>If P is true. What extra people would it help persuade of it being true if it was presented with extra added charisma? The ones who do _understand_ P, or the ones who do not understand P but instead seek to attach themselves to a charismatic person (or something similar to this)?

You're assuming that either a person hears P and accepts it or a person cares about the presenter independent of P. I don't agree with this dichotomy.
Many people might not give someone the time of day if he presents his idea without any confidence. Some people might think, "if he doesn't beleive in his own idea, why would I give him the time of day."

There is a reason why first impression matters, but you don't have to get stuck on that first impression (for good or for bad).

As I said before, maybe in a world full of curis someone can walk into a stage in their pajamas with their belly hanging out, and mumble through a speech while staring at the floor and everyone would care what he has to say solely on the message.
But that's just now how the world works.

>How does added charisma help in truth seeking? It does not make something more true. It will _only_ add people who did not understand P but liked the charisma instead.

I never said charisma helps with truth seeking. I was very clear to make truth seeking and presenting a truth as seperate things.

I did not claim that being charismatic makes something truer.]]>
Sat, 09 Nov 2019 22:43:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14271 http://curi.us/comments/show/14271
N Social Metaphysics > What I am arguing for is that I think it is important to learn that charisma, at least well enough to give your ideas a good chance of being heard.

If P is true. What extra people would it help persuade of it being true if it was presented with extra added charisma? The ones who do _understand_ P, or the ones who do not understand P but instead seek to attach themselves to a charismatic person (or something similar to this)?

How does added charisma help in truth seeking? It does not make something more true. It will _only_ add people who did not understand P but liked the charisma instead.]]>
Sat, 09 Nov 2019 21:41:32 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14270 http://curi.us/comments/show/14270
Summary curi curi's Progress
Word counts: 2350, 2400, 1170, 1350, 1320, 3160, 3530, 2050, 3700, 2850, 1950, 2800, 2000, 5750, 2100, 1100, 1200, 1150, 3950, 3300, 2700, 1400, 2200, 1100, 2050, 1350, 3450, 1200, 1050, 3000, 1100.

31 days, 69780 words, 2251 average. Highest day 5750, lowest day 1050, no days skipped or below the 1000 daily goal.

This isn't all my writing. It doesn't include discussions or replies. I think regular writing, alone, on topics I choose, is important for making forward progress.

I was writing regularly before I started posting these and I'll continue after.

I think a month is enough for sharing this info. It's enough of an example so people can get a sense of what I'm doing.]]>
Sat, 09 Nov 2019 20:00:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14269 http://curi.us/comments/show/14269
curi Social Metaphysics
They mostly don't have names. An example is you're often supposed to say "I think" or some other hedge. I don't want to discuss an example of that first because it's too subtle and complicated. The Disney song is easier to analyze and is a better thing to try. You have to work your way up to analyze really subtle, complex human action.]]>
Sat, 09 Nov 2019 19:43:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14268 http://curi.us/comments/show/14268
Augustine Social Metaphysics
What social rule demands points to be made less clear?

> And you shouldn't be focusing on what is theoretically possible, you should focus on what's realistic.

I thought I was with E.g. assuming that *most* people are not like you and do focus on other things besides the substance of an idea.

Maybe you mean I am being unrealistic in learning how to public speak. I don't think it is that hard and I am already okay at public speaking. I don't think I am assuming unrealistic goals.]]>
Sat, 09 Nov 2019 19:23:10 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14267 http://curi.us/comments/show/14267
curi Social Metaphysics
I said why I brought it up:

> One of the ways to start learning this [...] is to consider something less subtle than JBP.


---

> I think this can be said of writing too. I think that writing should be as clear and precise as possible.

Social rules, for both writing and speaking, demand making certain points less clear. Some bluntness is socially impermissible even if it's true.

Many good ideas cannot be said without either making the idea less good or violating our culture's social rules. Many social rules, including ones about what is considered charismatic, are irrational and in direct conflict with truth, reason, etc.

And you shouldn't be focusing on what is theoretically possible, you should focus on what's realistic. E.g. what could you do if you were a million times more knowledgeable and skilled than any living human? That's not relevant. Making your life harder, putting extra obstacles in the way, matters even if they don't make success literally impossible. They raise the chance of failure and they take resources away from good things. E.g. some people spend over 10,000 hours on hairstyle and makeup. That means giving up doing something else, e.g. learning physics or learning economics. That big cost in time makes a big, negative difference in life, whether or not it actually contradicts good philosophy (which I think it does).]]>
Sat, 09 Nov 2019 18:08:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14266 http://curi.us/comments/show/14266
Augustine Social Metaphysics
I am arguing that knowing that many if not *most* people judge an idea not solely on its merit but also on the charisma of the speakers. I think we agree on this.

What I am arguing for is that I think it is important to learn that charisma, at least well enough to give your ideas a good chance of being heard. I also suspect that learning these things would make me better at spotting them when someone is trying to use them against me.

>Repeating what you haven't engaged with: I think if you knew what was going on when people talk – word by word, gesture by gesture, tone by tone – if you could understand what they were doing, you'd reach a different judgment about it.

I don't think I disagree with this.

> You're trying to reach conclusions in advance of understanding the issues you're concluding about. You need to start looking at what these people do, and why, and what it means, before judging.

I am working with the idea, which btw you taught me, that anyone can learn any skill provided they approach it rationally and make effort

So if it is possible to present true statement *and* present them well I see no reason why not reach a minimum proficient level of charisma and then entirely focus on truth seeking after that.

I think this can be said of writing too. I think that writing should be as clear and precise as possible. So that your ideas can be presented with as little confusion as possible. This too of course can be abused, and people can probably learn to write meaningless nonsense but do it in a fancy way or something.


> https://www.lyricsmania.com/go_the_distance_lyrics_disney.html

> What do you think of the ideas in those lyrics? And do you think that's something you could analyze successfully without missing much?

I could give it a shot and I suspect I would miss much.

But how does this relate to whether learning to present a true statement P and learning to present it well is possible and desirable? I don't think you would get convinced if I were to present a perfect analysis of it.

Before I attempt it, could you tell me why you brought it up?

>BTW I think this topic is really important, it's one of the larger things affecting what the world is like. And almost no one will even try to talk about it. And when they do, mostly they lie – most people think something similar to Augustine but won't admit it in debate, instead they say that of course they think ideas should be judged based just on the idea not the charisma of the speaker, obviously that's rational and they are on the side of reason. But most people saying that are actually more like Augustine than they are like me, and saying that shuts down discussion of the disagreements.

>So I appreciate discussing it.

Always happy to. These discussions always teach me a lot. I agree that it is important too.

> Also, this is a big topic. Lots to know, learn, analyze. I find people sometimes expect stuff like this to be a simple, quick, easy topic, and having the wrong expectations gets in the way of discussion.

Yes, I suspect there are many facets to this, I don't expect it to be easy and I don't mind pursuing this topic independent of how long it takes.]]>
Sat, 09 Nov 2019 17:48:13 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14265 http://curi.us/comments/show/14265
curi Social Metaphysics
So I appreciate discussing it.

Also, this is a big topic. Lots to know, learn, analyze. I find people sometimes expect stuff like this to be a simple, quick, easy topic, and having the wrong expectations gets in the way of discussion.]]>
Sat, 09 Nov 2019 17:05:23 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14264 http://curi.us/comments/show/14264
curi Social Metaphysics
Yes. Getting to a destination is not a competition.

> If so, Why would learning presenting skills "just well enough" is also not possible?

Because e.g. if 50,000,000 people want a job with 500 open slots, being able to do the job just well enough doesn't mean you'll get a slot. Someone who is better than that will get the job instead.

Repeating what you haven't engaged with: I think if you knew what was going on when people talk – word by word, gesture by gesture, tone by tone – if you could understand what they were doing, you'd reach a different judgment about it. You're trying to reach conclusions in advance of understanding the issues you're concluding about. You need to start looking at what these people do, and why, and what it means, before judging.

One of the ways to start learning this, besides looking at my existing material on the subject, which I already linked some of, is to consider something less subtle than JBP. Like the meaning of the words lyrics (not even tones and gestures of the singer, which is harder to analyze in words, just start with the words that make up the lyrics):

https://www.lyricsmania.com/go_the_distance_lyrics_disney.html

What do you think of the ideas in those lyrics? And do you think that's something you could analyze successfully without missing much?]]>
Sat, 09 Nov 2019 17:01:43 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14263 http://curi.us/comments/show/14263
Bible Yes or No Andy Dufresne Praise for Yes or No Philosophy
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A37&version=NIV
Matthew 5:37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.]]>
Sat, 09 Nov 2019 16:47:41 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14262 http://curi.us/comments/show/14262
Augustine Social Metaphysics Sat, 09 Nov 2019 16:40:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14261 http://curi.us/comments/show/14261 Augustine Social Metaphysics
> It's kinda like: can you talk about FI on YouTube while spinning plates?

Is also not relevant to presenting skills. I never said start a performance of an unrelated skill while you're presenting an idea.

I said to present an idea, clearly, without mumbling, with good intonation, and presented yourself in a clean manner.

#14247 If you're Justin, just like your big tits example this,

> It's kinda like: can you talk about FI on YouTube while spinning plates?

It is also not relevant to presenting skills. I never said start performance of an unrelated skill while you're presenting an idea.

I said to present an idea, clearly, without mumbling, with good intonation and cleanly presented yourself.]]>
Sat, 09 Nov 2019 16:38:05 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14260 http://curi.us/comments/show/14260
Augustine Social Metaphysics
Not at all. But debating the merits of Jordan Peterson might be best left for another time.

> There are many large clashes between the pursuit of truth and being socially skilled/impressive/etc.

Yes, there are clashes between the two but then *is* possible to make a statement true and present it well.

Do you agree that certain skills such as learning to ride a bike or learning to drive, *could* be improved indefinitely but *most* people are able to learn to drive just well enough to get them to a destination?

If so, Why would learning presenting skills "just well enough" is also not possible?]]>
Sat, 09 Nov 2019 16:34:03 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14259 http://curi.us/comments/show/14259
The Rat Morality
I think rule-consequentialism does have principles (rules) that are evaluated based on their consequences.

Rule-consequentialism claims that an act is permissible if and only if it is allowed by a code that could reasonably be expected to result in as much good as could reasonably be expected to result from any other identifiable code. [See Brad Hooker's version of rule consequentialism]

I think rule consequentalism does run into the same problem as deontology, in that you end up following a rule blindly into sometimes doing what would be intuitively thought as morally atrocious behavior. Like not lying to a murderer.

They both seem to be extremely rigid in their application, they just happen to differ in their formulation.

I think I prefer rule consequentialist over deontology. Simply because it does take consequences into account when creating its rules. I dislike that if followed to its logical extreme you end up justifying what I would consider immoral actions.]]>
Sat, 09 Nov 2019 13:11:35 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14258 http://curi.us/comments/show/14258
Howard Roark Morality
It's like, in science, splitting up data/evidence (consequences) and theories/explanations (principles). Both sides of the split are broken because they're too incomplete.

rule consequentialism = we'll judge theories based on data. they don't seem to get that you need theories to interpret data and the same data can be interpreted in different ways by different theories, in addition to not getting that you can have a theory criticize a theory.

It's kinda like choosing between mind or body. Why try to pick one? What for? The whole thing is trying to solve a non-problem. The problem is like "What one thing should we base morality on?" But why not two or three or even a non-foundationalist approach? No answer. I think it's because they believe principles like "don't lie" clash with consequences like "the murderer finds his victim because i told the truth about the victim's location", and so you have to take sides because there's a contradiction. But this is a contradiction between 1) *bad*, naive, simplistic principles, not good ones (problem solved with better principles) 2) results/data as interpreted by different principles (common sense, cultural defaults, which they don't realize they are using and don't examine, critically consider, write down, etc.)]]>
Sat, 09 Nov 2019 12:55:22 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14257 http://curi.us/comments/show/14257
The Rat Morality
Which of those 2 do you find to be a stronger argument and how is it different compared to morality based on CR?]]>
Sat, 09 Nov 2019 09:06:11 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14256 http://curi.us/comments/show/14256
Typo detected N Discussions Should Use Sources Sat, 09 Nov 2019 06:30:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14255 http://curi.us/comments/show/14255 curi Discussions Should Use Sources Fri, 08 Nov 2019 20:47:04 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14254 http://curi.us/comments/show/14254 Likes proper commas Discussions Should Use Sources
Add a comma after Anyway

> And similarly he can help point me at socialist literature that addresses some specific questions I have, because he knows where to find that better than I do.

Add a comma after similarly. Remove comma after have

> You learn some parts of the field and for other parts you don’t investigate it beyond a summary level.

Add a comma after parts.

> For someone like me who has read a lot of economics but it’s not my speciality, it’s not even close

it is "specialty" not "speciality"

> If the existing ideas are inadequate, in general you should help improve them instead

Add a comma after general

> you’re still behind, so you have do to so much work before starting over is useful.

should read "have to do"

---

Cheers!]]>
Fri, 08 Nov 2019 20:44:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14253 http://curi.us/comments/show/14253
Telling the Story of Jordan Peterson Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019)
Filmmaker Patricia Marcoccia was midway through a film with psychology professor Jordan Peterson when he suddenly became an international superstar, and one of the most controversial and polarising figures on the planet.

Now her film, The Rise of Jordan Peterson, has itself been subject to controversy and cancellations.

David Fuller caught up with Patricia and the film's producer Maziar Ghaderi to ask what they make of the reception for their film, and how their views changed over two years making the film, right at the centre of the culture wars.

You can purchase the film online: https://www.holdingspacefilms.com/rise]]>
Fri, 08 Nov 2019 20:12:46 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14252 http://curi.us/comments/show/14252
Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019) Fri, 08 Nov 2019 18:24:06 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14251 http://curi.us/comments/show/14251 Math Problem Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019) Fri, 08 Nov 2019 18:20:46 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14250 http://curi.us/comments/show/14250 curi curi's Progress Fri, 08 Nov 2019 15:02:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14249 http://curi.us/comments/show/14249 curi Social Metaphysics
> (which seems a bit harsh toward Peterson as he doesn't strike me like he's deceitful but mistaken)

The way he strikes you is based on his *social skill*, **not** his honesty or rationality.

> It seems that you're claiming that it is impossible to make a statement true *and* present it well.

There are many large clashes between the pursuit of truth and being socially skilled/impressive/etc.]]>
Fri, 08 Nov 2019 14:50:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14248 http://curi.us/comments/show/14248
Medium J Social Metaphysics
You can present some true idea *well* in terms of stuff that's helpful for truth-seeking. The criteria for that are stuff like stating your ideas in a clear and organized way, addressing potential objections, and discussing examples.

Presenting some true idea to some standard of being socially calibrated and charismatic (which is what I guess you may mean by "well") is possible. But it has drawbacks like adding non-truth-seeking overhead and attracting viewers just based on the social stuff.

It's kinda like: can you talk about FI on YouTube while spinning plates? Sure, but why? If you want to do FI focus on that. If you want to do plate spinning focus on that. FI is hard enough to do well without adding unrelated distractions.

It's true you might get a few more viewers cuz of the plate spinning, but then FI won't be why they're really there. And you won't be an impressive plate spinner unless you really focus on it, which will hurt your FI-related time and attention.]]>
Fri, 08 Nov 2019 14:47:14 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14247 http://curi.us/comments/show/14247
Augustine Social Metaphysics
Is that correct?]]>
Fri, 08 Nov 2019 14:00:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14246 http://curi.us/comments/show/14246
curi Social Metaphysics
It depends on your goal.

If your goal is to find the truth, this is making things much worse. If your goal is to make money while being a sort of snake oil salesmen, then presentation skills are very important.

> I see nothing wrong with learning to present statement P in the best possible light. Without making P untrue.

The social rules of our society commonly require changing P to be untrue in some ways to present it in the best possible light.

The social rules require so much effort it substantially detracts from figuring out what's true.

If you knew what presenting P in the best possible light entailed – what that consists of, in detail, in words – you would change your mind. The key here is to actually analyze social behavior and figure out what's going on before you come to a judgment about it.]]>
Fri, 08 Nov 2019 13:47:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14245 http://curi.us/comments/show/14245
Augustine Social Metaphysics Fri, 08 Nov 2019 13:46:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14244 http://curi.us/comments/show/14244 Augustine Social Metaphysics
I go back to my argument. If statement P is true. I see nothing wrong with learning to present statement P in the best possible light. Without making P untrue.

If statement P is really important and true. And if more people adopted view P, then it makes sense to give P a better chance of being adopted by learning presenting skills. In a proficient enough manner. Again, without taking away from P itself.]]>
Fri, 08 Nov 2019 13:43:49 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14243 http://curi.us/comments/show/14243
curi Social Metaphysics
If you learned to consciously see what was going on when people talk, to understand all the social stuff they are doing and be able to put it into words, it would change your perspective.]]>
Fri, 08 Nov 2019 13:36:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14242 http://curi.us/comments/show/14242
curi Open Discussion (2019)
> he seems like he's really interested in truth-seeking and debate

I don't think so. And what reason would I give Destiny for wanting to debate him? At this point, I have enough information that I can't honestly say I think I'll learn good ideas from him. I also don't think he'll be rational and learn from me.

I don't think I should seek people out for discussion/debate unless I see merit. I investigated in various ways, which I didn't explain all of (you'd know more if you watched my streams about it btw) and I don't see merit worth pursuing. I don't think he's up to my standards. I'm much more lenient if people come to me, though, and try to give ~anyone a chance.

If you think I'm wrong feel free to use https://elliottemple.com/debate-policy]]>
Fri, 08 Nov 2019 13:30:47 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14241 http://curi.us/comments/show/14241
The Lil lion Augustine Open Discussion (2019)
I find the story suspicious too.]]>
Fri, 08 Nov 2019 13:29:58 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14240 http://curi.us/comments/show/14240
Augustine Social Metaphysics
Sure you could spend your time doing better in that realm if you so wish. but you don't have to. Like driving, most people get "good enough" at it to go on with their lives. Presenting your self well is an important skill to develop. How much time you spend on that will depend largely on context.

> If your goal is to plant a field, it takes a fixed amount of effort, e.g. 100 hours of labor. If your goal is to get popular like Jordan Peterson, it takes ongoing effort to compete with other people who are putting creativity into being more charismatic than you, better looking, speaking in ways that better manipulate the audience, etc.

I don't quite agree with this. Being charismatic is only part of it. Peterson also has an important message that he has worked on for several years to convey. As I said before I do think that truth seeking is important, but if you want to present your idea you have to do it in the best light.

If we lived in a world full of curis who do not care how an idea is presented. Though I suspect to some level you do, the little I know about the characters on your favorite novels, they also present themselves in a certain way. Which you happen to admire.
But for a moment let's assume you don't. If we lived in a world full of curis then it would make sense to **Not** practice presentation skills. And learn how to be charming and dress well etc...

But we do not live in a world full of curis and thus these skills are important to learn.

I would say that one could work to be proficient "enough" at presentation. And then spend more of his time getting better at truth-seeking. I see it as learning to drive good enough to get you to your real destination.]]>
Fri, 08 Nov 2019 13:23:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14239 http://curi.us/comments/show/14239
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
Idk much about his discord, but even if isn't managed super well and the mods ban people for bad reasons sometimes, why is that a reason not to talk to him? If that's a big issue you could debate him about it, or about moderation and discussion policy in general and why its important. And I'm suspicious of that story that he deleted a vod of a debate about Oism. He's popular enough that it would be really hard for him to hide a debate he'd had, even if he deleted a vod someone watching probably would have recorded it themselves. Deleting it would just make him look bad.]]>
Fri, 08 Nov 2019 13:14:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14238 http://curi.us/comments/show/14238
curi Social Metaphysics
And it incorrectly treats fitting in or presenting yourself well or that kinda thing as a fixed bar: do X amount of it and you're done, good enough. It's a competition and you're never done, can never rest, because there are always people competing with you to do it even better.

If your goal is to plant a field, it takes a fixed amount of effort, e.g. 100 hours of labor. If your goal is to get popular like Jordan Peterson, it takes ongoing effort to compete with other people who are putting creativity into being more charismatic than you, better looking, speaking in ways that better manipulate the audience, etc.

If it was a big but finite distraction from truth seeking, that'd be bad enough but more manageable. But what happens is people find going from 20% of their effort to the social competition to 30% means they get more fans, and then going up to 40% means even more fans, and there is nowhere that it stops. They just keep competing all the way up to 100% – at which point their content is all chosen for social reasons not truth reasons (there are social requirements to have some content, not just charm, but the content is optimized socially instead of for truth).

Some people are like "fuck that" and won't play that game up to 100% social orientation. Most of them are posturing because they gave up on winning so they claim to object to the game and its rules, but if they could win they would want to. The same as the "unpopular kids" in school mostly would prefer to be popular kids if they knew how, and their complaints about what's bad about the popular kids are mostly pretty dishonest (since they're only complaining due to lack of success and access, it's not principled).

To understand this it's necessary to see in more detail what these people do and how optimized it is in detail at all times. It's not just putting on OK clothes and making some eye contact. It's talking in ways (word choices, sentence constructions) that sound smart but reduce clarity. It's talking in voice tones that people think sound smart and optimizing what you say to have good spots in the sentences to do voice tones, the sentences need to flow the right way to enable the voice tones. It's knowing when to make a gesture and *not* explain something, so the audience doesn't have to think about it and will pretend they got it even though they didn't. It's knowing a million ways that social rules are idiosyncratic, stupid nonsense, contradictory, etc., and what to do with all those tiny, unprincipled details.

People put on social performances all the time, it consumes most of their thought, and they put most of their effort into paying attention to social reactions. If you can understand human interaction and see what's going on, it'll change your perspective and how OK it is or isn't. Lots of it is saying things to trigger static meme reactions. Lots is lying.

Here's one tiny example: https://curi.us/2167-analyzing-how-culture-manipulates-you-by-pulling-your-puppet-strings

When people talk in general, it's like 9 sentences worth of information in the social world per 1 sentence on information in the truth-seeking, reality-oriented world.]]>
Fri, 08 Nov 2019 13:01:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14237 http://curi.us/comments/show/14237
Learning Marx Introductory Questions Fri, 08 Nov 2019 12:58:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14236 http://curi.us/comments/show/14236 curi Open Discussion (2019) Fri, 08 Nov 2019 12:44:20 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14235 http://curi.us/comments/show/14235 Anonymous Open Discussion (2019) > So I'm done.
Done with talking to people on his discord or done with trying to reach out to destiny himself?]]>
Fri, 08 Nov 2019 12:43:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14234 http://curi.us/comments/show/14234
My debate with potholer54 on YT N Productive Global Warming Discussion
I was hoping to get him interested in debating curi or AE. But potholer54 has shown no interest in that thus far. I do not think he wants to debate anyone in a truth seeking matter publicly.]]>
Fri, 08 Nov 2019 04:06:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14233 http://curi.us/comments/show/14233
Anonymous Rand on Nurture For example, that it is involved in the formation of memories. And the cytoskeleton does look like an amazing and super-fast molecular computer - check out videos of it on YouTube. So the brain kinda looks like billions of universal computers all wired up together and that the relatively slow action potentials of neurons are just the more noticeable aspect of a much more complicated picture that we are just beginning to see.]]> Fri, 08 Nov 2019 02:37:10 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14232 http://curi.us/comments/show/14232 curi Open Discussion (2019)
Here's an example of a message I wrote which got zero replies:

>@Kyouu#3374

>> You haven't argued from any coherent standpoint, all you have done is assert some book I haven't read to have proven your position beyond doubt and demanding me to refute your points from within your system

> Refuting points from within a system is the best place to start. If you have no within-system refutation, we can consider refutations external to the system. Within-system arguments are better first because they're easier to make, understand and evaluate. I've brought into the discussion a detailed system which you or anyone could point out flaws in. If you think neither you nor anyone else can do that or has done it, that's a good start on analyzing it, that'd be discussion progress, and if you disagree with that you can provide a refutation.

> On the other hand, you haven't specified a system either by using the literature or yourself. Economic and political philosophy systems are much too complicated to specify in adequate detail, rigorously enough, in a real time discussion, so using the literature is the only realistic way to do it. If you don't specify your system enough – e.g. you brought up Market Social but didn't give full details of how it works – the there's no good way for anyone to learn that you're right or wrong, because they don't know what you're claiming enough to evaluate it.]]>
Thu, 07 Nov 2019 23:06:50 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14231 http://curi.us/comments/show/14231
curi curi's Progress Thu, 07 Nov 2019 18:31:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14230 http://curi.us/comments/show/14230 Anonymous The Most Important Improvement to Popperian Philosophy of Science
> But experimental testing is by no means the only process involved in the growth of scientific knowledge. The overwhelming majority of theories are rejected because they contain bad explanations, not because they fail experimental tests. We reject them without ever bothering to test them. For example, consider the theory that eating a kilogram of grass is a cure for the common cold. That theory makes experimentally testable predictions: if people tried the grass cure and found it ineffective, the theory would be proved false. But it has never been tested and probably never will be, because it contains no explanation — either of how the cure would work, or of anything else. We rightly presume it to be false. There are always infinitely many possible theories of that sort, compatible with existing observations and making new predictions, so we could never have the time or resources to test them all. What we test are new theories that seem to show promise of explaining things better than the prevailing ones do.]]>
Thu, 07 Nov 2019 18:13:13 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14229 http://curi.us/comments/show/14229
Anonymous Rand on Nurture Thu, 07 Nov 2019 18:11:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14228 http://curi.us/comments/show/14228 Anonymous Rand on Nurture
Sounds right. But how do slow neurons handle this? I read that cortical neurons fire about 6 or 7 times a second on average. So, on the face of it, information is going to take significant time to propagate through thousands of layers. There must be some seriously cool software engineering going on for us to function in real time.]]>
Thu, 07 Nov 2019 18:03:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14227 http://curi.us/comments/show/14227
Alisa Open Discussion 2 (2019)
It looks like drilling and re-sealing are the main steps that are harder (but I don't know *how much harder*) when a satellite hasn't been designed for re-fueling. According to Brent Robertson, NASA’s project manager for the mission (from the [same article](https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellites/how-nasa-will-grapple-and-refuel-a-satellite-in-low-earth-orbit)):

> "Cutting things and unscrewing caps and refueling, that's difficult. But the actual capture of a satellite and relocation—we have the capability to do that for a much wider spectrum of satellites."

The harder steps would be easier if the satellite had robot-friendly valves for re-fueling, but apparently no satellite has ever had those:

> "It's almost like a chicken or the egg thing," says Robertson. "Nobody has done robotic servicing, so until it's demonstrated, operators are reluctant to invest in servicing until they see that it's possible. I think when we actually demonstrate this on Landsat 7, you'll see [the] industry becoming more aware that there's an opportunity here."]]>
Thu, 07 Nov 2019 17:06:13 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14226 http://curi.us/comments/show/14226
Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019) Thu, 07 Nov 2019 16:37:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14225 http://curi.us/comments/show/14225 NASA to send robot into space to re-fuel satellite Alisa Open Discussion 2 (2019)
[Landsat 7](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsat_7), the satellite in question, was launched in 1999. It takes color pictures of Earth, many of which can be seen in Google Earth and other products.

Here's the plan. First, the robot will approach the satellite and, autonomously, grab onto it. Then, guided remotely by human operators, the robot will drill a hole in the satellite's fuel tank and inject over 100 kg of hydrazine. Finally, the robot will seal the hole, cover the satellite with a space blanket, and fly off into its own orbit.]]>
Thu, 07 Nov 2019 16:32:17 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14224 http://curi.us/comments/show/14224
curi curi's Progress
Streamed over 4 hours last night. Going to stream more today and talk on Destiny's discord again because it has some people willing to discuss. However during the stream I heard lots of people get banned for no reason and that Destiny *deletes archive videos* (wtf!?) and bans people if he doesn't like how a debate turns out. Sad.]]>
Thu, 07 Nov 2019 12:54:47 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14223 http://curi.us/comments/show/14223
N Productive Global Warming Discussion
They even made this the theme in the Thanos arc in Avengers. Likely wanted to portrait him a sympathetic villain too. At least that is the impression I have gotten from speaking to people re *Avengers: Infinity War* & *Avengers: Endgame*.]]>
Thu, 07 Nov 2019 12:24:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14222 http://curi.us/comments/show/14222
curi Open Discussion (2019)
Then B Rytharius said he debated Destiny on stream about Objectivism and Destiny **banned him and DELETED THE VOD**.

So, looks grim.]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 20:59:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14221 http://curi.us/comments/show/14221
Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019)
> "Three days after his GSL semifinals, Life competed in the Iron Squid – Chapter II Korean qualifier, where he made his way to the finals at the expense of Sting, Polt and HyuN, but had to all-ined his games in the last match against Brown because he was about to be forced shutdown (in Korea, the law for the compulsory shutdown forbids the children under 16 years of age to play online from midnight to six in the morning).[28] The runner-up place still awarded a spot in the Iron Squid Chapter II though, making him the only player to attend both seasons of the French league by mean of qualifiers.

"All-ined" means playing very aggressive strategies to get the game over with fast – do a quick attack that sacrifices any chance to win later if it doesn't work. This is risky at best, and pretty much game-losing if your opponent knows in advance that you're going to do it.]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 19:47:20 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14220 http://curi.us/comments/show/14220
Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019)
> China to implement new regulation regarding gaming, will "ban users younger than 18 from playing games between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. They are not permitted to play more than 90 minutes on weekdays and three hours on weekends and holidays" (nytimes.com)

Strict, national screen time limits. *Not a free country.* Sucks for the kids.

Free Hong Kong!]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 19:43:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14219 http://curi.us/comments/show/14219
curi curi's Progress
Made 3 YT vids last night.

Looked into Destiny (streamer) a bit today. He looks kinda OK maybe. A commenter advised he's open to debate on topics like capitalism (i'm told he's center left but not hard left). He has a Discord where it looks like one can have a debate without being banned (there are actual rules, so maybe it won't be like the Hugo and Jake Show discord or the Charles Tew discord that banned me and deleted all my messages without warning). Gonna try chatting there and stream it soon. May get Destiny's attention via that or posting something to his subreddit.]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 19:00:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14218 http://curi.us/comments/show/14218
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019) Wed, 06 Nov 2019 18:26:05 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14217 http://curi.us/comments/show/14217 Augustine Open Discussion (2019) Wed, 06 Nov 2019 18:15:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14216 http://curi.us/comments/show/14216 Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
![](https://curi.us/img/NLf1IwJpIbMdTIN-1100x773.png)]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 17:42:27 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14215 http://curi.us/comments/show/14215
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
I'd guess the best way to get his attention would be to make a post on his subreddit describing who you are and what you wanted to talk about. If the post gets upvoted he'll probably see it himself, and even if he doesn't some people might bring it to his attention. You could also go to his discord channel and say that you want to debate him. He almost definitely won't see the message himself, but if you explain who you are and chat there for a while, and explain why it would be good for him to talk to you, some people with a more direct way of communicating with him might let him know about you.

I don't think he would read an article from someone he didn't know anything about, but he might watch a relatively short (<30 mins) video criticizing his stuff.

afaik he doesn't have any sort of canonical intro to his positions. He's layed out most of his positions during conversations and debates with other people.

>There's no way he just talks to any random person who wants attention. He appears to talk to streamers/youtuber types a fair amount which i'm tiny as.

He definitely doesn't talk to every random person, but there have been many times where he's just pulled in no-name people from his twitch chat or discord or subreddit, so there's a good chance you'd be able get his attention if you wanted to.]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 16:38:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14214 http://curi.us/comments/show/14214
Andy Productive Global Warming Discussion
I also think nuclear is our current best solution. I believe it has the lowest number of deaths per kwh of all time, iirc.

And like anyone who follows DD probably agrees, even if climate change really is a problem, what we need is more universal creative knowledge creators, more progress not stagnation. Try to fight the anti-human attitude whenever I can.

Malthusian prophets of doom seem to be winning that fight sadly.

See you around.]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 16:04:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14213 http://curi.us/comments/show/14213
curi Productive Global Warming Discussion
Some stuff he says: He talks about the importance of human flourishing and putting issues in context: is this good or bad for people? Or do we actually have some other goal like minimizing human impact on nature? If we're clear on our goals, and our goal is what's good for people, that provides an important context for discussion. Re global warming he emphasizes that weather forecasts are unreliable, the models being used aren't very good. And he talks about how to analyze risk rationally in a two-sided way: look at the risks of doing X and also the risks of *not* doing X, the potential downsides. Don't forget about the benefits of fossil fuels and e.g. how having greater access to energy helps protect people from climate with e.g. air conditioning (climate related deaths have gone down as we've used more fossil fuels because they help a lot more than they hurt).

Re cost efficiency, it's currently extremely distorted by government intervention, so it's really hard to get any useful info about that by looking at current market prices. FYI Epstein and I believe nuclear would be the cheapest and safest (and low CO2) without the suppression.]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 15:53:18 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14212 http://curi.us/comments/show/14212
Andy Productive Global Warming Discussion
I suspect if I were to link papers that claim there is such a thing as man-made climate change happening, you would probably reject them based on their methodology.

And with the deranged leftists abusing the consensus to try pass disastrous resolutions, I am sympathetic to the skeptics.

Such as: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/26/gm-golden-rice-delay-cost-millions-of-lives-child-blindness

plus fossil fuels seem to be losing their place as cost efficient: https://nucleuswealth.com/2019/10/07/energy-price-parity-no-party-for-coal/

---
Main point though:

I haven't looked into this enough, I was mostly curious to see if there is something about Epstein's methodology you find compelling.]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 15:43:50 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14211 http://curi.us/comments/show/14211
curi Productive Global Warming Discussion
If there's a specific issue you have questions about, e.g. something you think Epstein or I are wrong about X, and didn't answer arguments re X, you can ask about that issue. In the conversation with Augustine I answered some specific issues he brought up like the 97% claim and some links he gave.

In particular, if you think Objectivist arguments re environmentalism have been refuted somewhere, I'd like a reference to that. I find they're broadly ignored.]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 15:31:33 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14210 http://curi.us/comments/show/14210
Andy Productive Global Warming Discussion
Do you agree?

I don't understand how it is irrelevant. I am replying to a thread that has that conversation and quoting from it. How is it irrelevant?

I am Andy from IDW (min wage conversation Andy) not from FI. Was just seeing some links to this site. I thought the question by St was a good one, and I did not think curi answered it.

I can leave if you think I am breaking some rules, not trying to be hostile or w/e.]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 15:26:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14209 http://curi.us/comments/show/14209
curi Morality
The trait that morally differentiates humans from animals is being universal knowledge creators.

FYI universality is in David Deutsch's books. I don't know what background you're coming from (lots of people here have already read those).]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 15:22:57 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14208 http://curi.us/comments/show/14208
Anonymous Productive Global Warming Discussion
You seem to be trying to argue a basic point that i got just from reading the text. But without saying what you're doing, so that's confusing.

If you want information re the current state of environmentalist debate, just ask for it instead of bringing up a bunch of irrelevant details about these particular chat messages.

PS are you the andy from FI or the andy from IDW or a different andy?]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 15:17:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14207 http://curi.us/comments/show/14207
What is the trait? Considering Veganism Morality

https://youtu.be/1t1Vvc6IQD8]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 15:17:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14206 http://curi.us/comments/show/14206
Anonymous Productive Global Warming Discussion Wed, 06 Nov 2019 15:12:25 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14205 http://curi.us/comments/show/14205 Andy Productive Global Warming Discussion
> how to tell what's right, in short you make a discussion tree and look at what arguments and questions have not been answered

It doesn't really answer the question, how does he know Epstein is not propaganda?


I thought my point was fairly clear. Where did you get confused?]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 15:12:03 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14204 http://curi.us/comments/show/14204
Anonymous Productive Global Warming Discussion Wed, 06 Nov 2019 14:57:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14203 http://curi.us/comments/show/14203 Andy Productive Global Warming Discussion but anyway, how do you know that Alex Epstein is not the propaganda?

> curi:
re how to tell what's right, in short you make a discussion tree and look at what arguments and questions have not been answered. https://curi.us/2229-discussion-trees-with-example


This doesn't really say whether epstein is propaganda or not. Unless you have a discussion tree re Epstein.]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 14:47:10 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14202 http://curi.us/comments/show/14202
curi Claiming You Objectively Won A Debate
I think this is false. One of the issues with it is: DD has that access and it didn't enable him to change people's minds or to get very substantial discussions.

It does depend what you think is substantive. E.g. he got some discussions of this sort of nature and quality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jey_CzIOfYE But supposing hypothetically that he's right about CR, I think that kind of thing is inadequate to persuade people of CR and change the intellectual landscape.]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 13:59:35 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14201 http://curi.us/comments/show/14201
TheRat Claiming You Objectively Won A Debate
Maybe they have great rational discussions among themselves and never make it public.

Or there are people who do have great rational discussions but I have not come across them.]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 13:55:51 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14200 http://curi.us/comments/show/14200
curi Claiming You Objectively Won A Debate Wed, 06 Nov 2019 13:50:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14199 http://curi.us/comments/show/14199 TheRat Claiming You Objectively Won A Debate
And the non-public intellectuals, academic types, only discuss among themselves citing each others papers. I remember reading recently they showed that most of them go unread, even by the author that is citing them.

Granted I have not looked for that long.]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 13:47:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14198 http://curi.us/comments/show/14198
curi Claiming You Objectively Won A Debate
The claim I'm interested in is: only a few people are rational and there's little public access to discuss with them (because they're busy and they mostly talk with other super smart rational people).]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 13:39:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14197 http://curi.us/comments/show/14197
TheRat Claiming You Objectively Won A Debate
Maybe these venues attract especially anti-rational types.

My counter to that would be that if they themselves can't make rational arguments, they could link to work from someone they consider in to be in that .1%
Or summarize an argument from a .1 percenter. Has not happened yet.]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 13:37:32 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14196 http://curi.us/comments/show/14196
curi Claiming You Objectively Won A Debate
> A main counter argument ppl make, re state of the world, is that that's just the stupid masses on reddit but 0.1% of ppl are serious intellectuals who are far more rational, debate properly, etc.

Do you find that plausible or convincing, or not? Got arguments one way or another?]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 13:29:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14195 http://curi.us/comments/show/14195
TheRat Claiming You Objectively Won A Debate
I wrote on discord:

> I thought maybe what I could do is reach out and encourage people to either debate or discuss things in FI. I reached out to a ton of people. Way more than the times I tagged. The results were disappointing. I talked to people who claimed that capitalism is the biggest threat to modern society, when I asked them if they would debate this with you. Their response was why would I waste my time debating this. I must have talked to 40 people or so and the result has been basically the same. AFAIK nobody has reached out to FI as a result. It made me realize that, ok I am irrational but I don't think I am anywhere near as irrational as I thought I was comparatively. The state of irrationality (among people who claim to like rationality and value it) is a lot worse than I thought.


I think perspective (understanding the state of the world) might be a reason why you brought it up.

Do you have other reasons?]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 13:28:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14194 http://curi.us/comments/show/14194
Alisa Open Discussion (2019)
Good question. I should have said more about that in my original comment.

It's a MathWorld problem. Aside from the MathWorld page authors, I'm not sure who else missed the error; Blichfeldt's Theorem doesn't seem to be very well-known. ([It lacks an English Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Missing_science_topics/Maths3), for example.)

I proposed a correction via MathWorld's [contact form](http://mathworld.wolfram.com/contact/).

A true statement of (what is alleged to be) a version of Blechfeldt's Theorem is given in *[The Geometry of Numbers](https://books.google.com/books?id=Bycut_duHr8C&pg=PA120&dq=%22if+the+area+a+of+a+two-dimensional+set+c+is+greater+than+the+integer+n,+then,+by+a+parallel+displacement,+C+can+be+made+to+cover+at+least%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjR_fO_udblAhXIt1kKHfDaD48Q6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22blichfeldt's%20theorem%22&f=false)* by Olds et al. (2000) (retyped from Google Books link):

> If the area A of a two-dimensional set C is greater than the integer n, then, by a parallel displacement, C can be made to cover at least n + 1 lattice points of Λ.

This version, like the MathWorld version, is simpler and less general than [Blichfeldt's original statement of the theorem from 1914](https://archive.org/details/jstor-1988585).]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 13:08:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14193 http://curi.us/comments/show/14193
curi Open Discussion (2019)
Could find something he said that's wrong and write an article or make a video criticizing. Could talk in his twitch chat. Could donate with a message. Could ask for his opinion on stuff like my liberalism essay without asking for a debate – maybe that works well if I donate?

It seems hard to find out what he thinks in any kinda short way. I tried listening to the start of the capitalism socialism debate but I didn't like it cuz they're both missing what I regard as the key issues. Like they start talking about what society or economy they want but that's not the right starting place. That assumes some authorities planning society, something like that. A better starting place is non-violence aka freedom (which comes out of reason).

You have to be careful kinda cuz you don't wanna come off as just being a nobody seeking access to his audience, trying to get attention from them for free. There's no way he just talks to any random person who wants attention. He appears to talk to streamers/youtuber types a fair amount which i'm tiny as.

And while he looks alright to try talking with, idk that this sorta outreach project is worth a lot of effort to figure out the best way to approach it. But I would need to at least have a better sense of what he does and thinks before approaching him even if I just try something multi-purpose (like a critical article or video is the kinda content i might make anyway).]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 12:52:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14192 http://curi.us/comments/show/14192
curi Fallibilism
There is no way to create just the non-mistaken ideas and skip the mistakes. You have to brainstorm ideas including lots of mistakes and use critical thinking.

What about mistakes that get through our critical thinking, so we mistakenly act on them or accept them as true? We'll never be perfect and as we improve we'll raise our quality standards and take more interest in smaller mistakes.]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 12:09:23 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14191 http://curi.us/comments/show/14191
Anonymous Claiming You Objectively Won A Debate
![](https://curi.us/img/Y6KMtskMeEziTyG-768x465.png)]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 11:46:18 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14190 http://curi.us/comments/show/14190
curi Open Discussion (2019) Wed, 06 Nov 2019 11:38:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14189 http://curi.us/comments/show/14189 Veganism Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
Has he written about the morality of eating meat and factory farming?]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 11:35:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14188 http://curi.us/comments/show/14188
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019) Wed, 06 Nov 2019 11:16:34 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14187 http://curi.us/comments/show/14187 curi Tracking Discussions Wed, 06 Nov 2019 10:29:13 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14186 http://curi.us/comments/show/14186 curi Morality Wed, 06 Nov 2019 10:26:04 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14185 http://curi.us/comments/show/14185 Explanation of Moral Subjectivism Anonymous Morality Wed, 06 Nov 2019 10:16:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14184 http://curi.us/comments/show/14184 John Adams on speaking your mind (1765) Alisa Open Discussion (2019)
> Be not intimidated therefore, by any terrors, from publishing with the utmost freedom, whatever can be warranted by the laws of your country; nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberty, by any pretences of politeness, delicacy or decency. These as they are often used, are but three different names, for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.

What Adams wrote still rings true today, some 250 years after he wrote it.]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 08:10:10 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14183 http://curi.us/comments/show/14183
Anonymous Tracking Discussions
example: https://youtu.be/zf1ugCMK_v8]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 07:50:38 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14182 http://curi.us/comments/show/14182
N Productive Global Warming Discussion
> Private email is not a forum either.

Here he says that he can debate on any public forum (timestamped):

https://youtu.be/GIDN1dQ92_w?t=473]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 01:20:04 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14181 http://curi.us/comments/show/14181
curi Productive Global Warming Discussion Wed, 06 Nov 2019 01:07:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14180 http://curi.us/comments/show/14180 Anonymous Productive Global Warming Discussion > I am not going to debate anyone in YT comments. *That's seriously he's preferred forum?* That's sad and unserious.

I don't know. After all he did propose doing it by e-mail to Crowder. So I guess we'll see if he is willing to leave YT when asked back.]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 01:00:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14179 http://curi.us/comments/show/14179
curi Productive Global Warming Discussion
> The easiest way to debunk someone is to ask for a source, and check it. So I would ask Epstein how he knows that "'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong." The fact is, no one has ever taken a poll, so no one has any idea what the figure is, not even Epstein.

... uhhh he's an idiot or super biased.]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 00:38:27 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14178 http://curi.us/comments/show/14178
My debate with potholer54 on YT N Productive Global Warming Discussion
> Would you mind debating on another publicly available site or a public e-mail discussion group? The comment section on YT is not really good for this (no markdown support, hard to quote in a clear way etc).

> Btw, would you mind debating Alex or Elliot Temple (curi.us) in text? Both are far better than I am and Elliot knows Alex's position well as they have worked together. Elliot is also a long time associate of physicist and philosopher David Deutsch and is willing to debate anyone, with a history to prove it (e.g. see discussion with Aubrey de Grey here: http://curi.us/1658-discussion-with-aubrey-de-grey).
> I think debating any of these two (Alex and / or Elliot) would be far more better than debating any Steven Crowder, Bill Whittle, or Christopher Monckton - as the last group of people, beside having social status, do not really have any good ideas on this issue (as far as I know at least).
> I will keep a copy of our discussion on Elliot's site as there might be people there interested in reading this that are more knowledgeable than me on the issue, and also because of how bad YT is for a written debate. You are welcome to write there directly if you so wish (this is my proposition for a better discussion site from the paragraph above btw). http://curi.us/2231-productive-global-warming-discussion
> But I digress.

>> "So I would ask Epstein how he knows that '97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong."

> It is wrong in a popular context that it is being pushed. That is, the claim of something like: "97% of climate scientist agree that humans have such a catastrophic climate impact that we shouldn't use fossil fuels".
> In this article Alex asks and answers these two questions by checking the sources and methods used:
> 1. What exactly do the climate scientists agree on?
> 2. How do we know the 97% agree?
>(https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#6b5216453f9f)

> I will check your videos, which I have not yet seen, but according to what you write in this post I am pretty confident that I will agree with what you have to say there regarding faulty thinking methods e.g. such as appeal to authority.
> For context: I am influenced by David Deutsch and Elliot when it comes to epistemology and they both build on Karl Popper's breakthroughs in the field. I do not claim to be an expert on it by any means, but I am learning. David's books "The Fabric of Reality" and "The Beginning of Infinity" is thus where I come from on epistemology and if you are familiar with them you understand why I agree with you regarding "appeal to authority".

>> "Actually, what I said was this: 'Over the last 10 years the cost of manufacturingsolar panels and wind turbines has plunged, slashing the price of the electricity they produce. At the same time, their efficiency has increased, making them even more competitive ...'

> My bad. The manufacturing costs have decreased and the technology has become better. That's true. My issue here is that the way environmentalists and politicians chose to present the price of solar and wind power is dishonest, as they do so by talking about "capacity" and as an "add on". Why this is dishonest is explained in the link below by Alex. Do you disagree with what Alex says there? Timestamped:
> https://youtu.be/xZPsrm-25-0?t=231

> Also, if you don't mind, would you point me to a video of yours that sums up your position - your conclusion if so be (if you have one of that kind), or one that you consider on of your most educational ones?]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 00:25:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14177 http://curi.us/comments/show/14177
My debate with potholer54 on YT N Productive Global Warming Discussion https://youtu.be/6fV6eeckxTs

Potholer54's response to my text in #14164:

> The easiest way to debunk someone is to ask for a source, and check it. So I would ask Epstein how he knows that "'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong." The fact is, no one has ever taken a poll, so no one has any idea what the figure is, not even Epstein. Epstein is simply articulating a myth that has been going round the internet, and which I have debunked in my video "Scientific consensus and arguments from authority." ""A parade of scientists (never mind if they have degrees in microbiology or metallurgy) tell them that ocean cycles are reponsible for global warming" This is another argument from authority, debunked in the same video and also my video "Meet the Scientists." The argument that "a scientist says...." is not proof of anything. After all, scientists say the universe was created 6,000 years ago and that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. This isn't how science is done. "You also claim, in this video ([19:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fV6eeckxTs&t=1150s)), that solar is cheaper than other forms of energy and post some graphs supporting that claim." Actually, what I said was this: "Over the last 10 years the cost of manufacturingsolar panels and wind turbines has plunged, slashing the price of the electricity they produce. At the same time, their efficiency has increased, making them even more competitive. As the price falls, many countries have reduced or eliminated subsidies altogether. Electricity from renewables is now so cheap that even the coal museum in Virginia decided to install solar panels. According to a 2017 report by the International Renewable Energy Agency: “Increasingly, the technology is competing head-to-head with conventional power sources – and doing so without financial support.”" If Epstein has some evidence that that is not true, please let me know where in his video he presents it, and I'll take a look.]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 00:20:49 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14176 http://curi.us/comments/show/14176
N Productive Global Warming Discussion > Sounds like he wants to talk with/about people with reputations in order to social climb. He seems to focus on lightweights with audiences. If you think he'll talk with unknowns, debate him yourself to prove it and then maybe I'll go next.

I will do that. Over night he did respond to me on YT. I will post our discussion here and I have invited him to this thread.
Do feel free to correct me on discussion approach, methods, and where you think I'm wrong. I wish to learn and become better.

> He wants to debate Crowder in text because Crowder is good at real time voice conversations ...

To be honest I haven't seen him live debate anyone in any video. I think he prefers prep time and looking into stuff. Which I think is fair. I think that live debates can be fun to watch but they are seldom very productive (too short and rely too much on pandering and bromides). So I wouldn't hold this against him as he has never done had any live debates at all as far as I can see.
I think you might hold a similar position on live debate, curi. Am I wrong? If not, how come you do not participate in live debate? Is it because you do not want to or another reason?

> Alex Epstein is too hard to argue with (due to skill and knowledge) relative to how well known he is, plus he's skilled at both voice and text so there isn't an easy weakness to exploit there.

I agree. Do you think Alex is willing to debate or is your take on it that he no longer is willing to engage in a debate if not with high status people? (I've read your criticism of Alex btw, hence the question.)

> If someone can link a *very high quality* section of video by Potholer that would impress me or change my mind about some environmentalist issue, let me know. What's his most educational thing?

I have asked potholer if he can point me to a video of his of this sort. He has many and I am not too familiar with him or his position. Before this conversation it was a couple of years since I last saw any of his videos.]]>
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 00:15:50 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14175 http://curi.us/comments/show/14175
Alisa Open Discussion (2019)
Consider a tiny disc having an area of, say, 0.0001. This tiny disc can include at most one lattice point, no matter how it is translated. But according to MathWorld's statement of Blichfeldt's Theorem, the disc can be translated to include at least 0.0001 + 1 = 1.0001 lattice points. The only way for it to do that would be for it to include 2 or more lattice points, which is impossible.]]>
Tue, 05 Nov 2019 21:49:52 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14174 http://curi.us/comments/show/14174
Anonymous Fallibilism
Will they always be common?]]>
Tue, 05 Nov 2019 21:17:33 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14173 http://curi.us/comments/show/14173
Error in MathWorld's statement of Blichfeldt's Theorem Alisa Open Discussion (2019)
> Blichfeldt's Theorem
>
> Any bounded planar region with positive area >A placed in any position of the unit square lattice can be translated so that the number of lattice points inside the region will be at least A+1 (Blichfeldt 1914, Steinhaus 1999).

This is incorrect. To see this, note that [the area of a disc with diameter 1.13 exceeds 1.002](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=area+of+disc+with+diameter+1.13). The above statement of Blichfeldt's Theorem implies that such a disc can be [translated](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation_%28geometry%29) so that it contains at least 2.002 [lattice points](http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PointLattice.html). As I will show, this is impossible.

Here is an example of a disc with diameter 1.13:

![](https://imgur.com/IB3XArl.png)

Since only a finite number of lattice points can be inside the disc and since each lattice point is either inside or outside the disc, the number of lattice points inside the disc is an integer. Thus, the only way for *at least 2.002* lattice points to be inside the disc is for *3 or more* lattice points to be inside the disc.

However, in any set of 3 lattice points, there will be 2 lattice points separated by a distance that exceeds the diameter of the disc (i.e., 1.13). To see this, note that if the 3 lattice points are corners of a unit square, then 2 of the points will be a distance of Sqrt[2] ≈ 1.414 apart; if the 3 points are adjacent on the same horizontal or vertical line, then 2 of the points will be a distance of 2 apart; and if the three points are in some other arrangement, 2 of the points will be separated by a distance of greater than 2.

In any case, 2 of the 3 points will be separated by a distance of more than 1.13 units. Therefore, the disc cannot contain 3 lattice points.]]>
Tue, 05 Nov 2019 21:13:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14172 http://curi.us/comments/show/14172
curi curi's Progress Tue, 05 Nov 2019 16:53:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14171 http://curi.us/comments/show/14171 curi Open Discussion (2019)
Good explanation of a technical feature. Good use of very short video clips for showing how it works.]]>
Tue, 05 Nov 2019 13:50:52 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14170 http://curi.us/comments/show/14170
Anonymous Politics Discussion
> According to the *Washington Post*, for example, police shootings make up 12% of all white and Hispanic homicide deaths, which is three times the proportion of black deaths resulting from police shootings. According to FBI data, over the last 10 years 40% of cop killers have been black, while police officers are killed by blacks at a rate 2.5 times higher than the rate at which blacks are killed by police.

I liked the whole article, which provides little known info about lynchings, and I was unaware of those stats.]]>
Tue, 05 Nov 2019 12:16:06 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14169 http://curi.us/comments/show/14169
curi Productive Global Warming Discussion
He wants to debate Crowder in text because Crowder is good at real time voice conversations but (a reasonable guess, though I don't really know) much worse at text debates. For social climbing purposes, Crowder is also a good target to attack in solo videos because of his popularity and reputation. And that's much lower risk than actually talking with Crowder and potentially looking like a fool. (Text is much lower risk btw, it's harder to look really foolish in text debates in the eyes of the barely-literate masses he's pandering to because they don't follow half the details, they judge debates by social metaphysics and text is much worse at providing social evidence.)

Alex Epstein is too hard to argue with (due to skill and knowledge) relative to how well known he is, plus he's skilled at both voice and text so there isn't an easy weakness to exploit there.

If someone can link a *very high quality* section of video by Potholer that would impress me or change my mind about some environmentalist issue, let me know. What's his most educational thing?]]>
Tue, 05 Nov 2019 10:36:40 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14168 http://curi.us/comments/show/14168
Catalina Update Sucks Anonymous Apple Announcements Commentary
Catalina update has been a disaster.]]>
Tue, 05 Nov 2019 08:04:29 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14167 http://curi.us/comments/show/14167
Feynman story - The power of good methods N Open Discussion (2019) Timestamped.

https://youtu.be/9miKIWIYi4w?t=183]]>
Tue, 05 Nov 2019 03:11:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14166 http://curi.us/comments/show/14166
N Productive Global Warming Discussion > Posted by me on YT:

It looked correct in Stackedit but broke here. All below "Posted by me on YT:" should be marked as a quote.]]>
Tue, 05 Nov 2019 02:50:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14165 http://curi.us/comments/show/14165
N Productive Global Warming Discussion
> Also re seeking out criticism and different ideas, has he done rebuttals to Alex Epstein ...

I asked potholer54 in the comments on YT if he had any rebuttals of AE. He answered within a couple of hours. He only has a very brief comment on one very minor point AE said in his Prager U video (the "diluteness problem").

I do not think that potholer54 commented on anything important that AE has to say big picture. Also my understanding of the "diluteness problem" is that it only refers to the step of taking diluted resources and making them concentrated - which is not what potholer54 is addressing.

Timestamped link to potholer54's video:
https://youtu.be/6fV6eeckxTs?t=1083

AE's original video:
https://youtu.be/ObvdSmPbdLg

I wrote to him in the YT comments. If anyone has criticism of what I wrote or if I am mistaken do let me know.

Posted by me on YT:

> @potholer54 Thx for directing me to this video.
I was hoping that you had addressed a more significant point of Alex Epstein as you are quoted on wikipedia to have said "Of course, the evidence clearly shows that the climate is changing, largely because of man-made gases.", which Alex is refuting here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/
and "A parade of scientists (never mind if they have degrees in microbiology or metallurgy) tell them that ocean cycles are reponsible for global warming, or that there is no warming at all, or that even if there is there is nothing to worry about." where the very last part, the magnitude, is something that runs as a theme in "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels".

> You also claim, in this video (19:10), that solar is cheaper than other forms of energy and post some graphs supporting that claim. Below is some criticism om those claims by Alex. Do you have any rebuttal of that criticism?
https://youtu.be/xZPsrm-25-0]]>
Tue, 05 Nov 2019 02:48:24 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14164 http://curi.us/comments/show/14164
N Productive Global Warming Discussion In anon's (#14159) link with Crowder (new timestamp: https://youtu.be/GIDN1dQ92_w?t=431 ) it looks like potholer54 is in favor of written debate as he asks for it (e-mail) when Crowder invites him to a live video debate. See Crowders text in the timestamped link above.]]> Mon, 04 Nov 2019 22:51:18 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14161 http://curi.us/comments/show/14161 N Productive Global Warming Discussion > Don't know him. Does he have writing? Does he have somewhere people submit questions or criticism? Does he debate?

As far as I can see he seems to do most of the debating in either video form on YT or in the comments on YT. But he has done some in writing here:

https://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/monckton-responds-to-potholer54/

It's not recent, but at least it shows he might be willing to engage in a written debate. I can not seem to find any other contact info other than his YT page though.

> Also re seeking out criticism and different ideas, has he done rebuttals to Alex Epstein or to any other public figures (especially the more serious, intellectual ones, not e.g. republican politicians) on the other side of the debate from him?

Regarding AE, no. Not to my knowledge. I did post on some of his videos asking for him to engage with AE back when I first read *MCFF*, but he never engaged with that proposition.
He has done responses / comments to at least the following people: *Tony Heller* (https://realclimatescience.com/who-is-tony-heller/), *Patrick Moore* (past president of Greenpeace Canada and later a critic of environmentalist tactics), *Bill Whittle* (conservative politician), *Steven Crowder*, *Christopher Monckton* (public speaker, politics UK conservative party & UKIP), *Stefan Molyneux*.

He seems to follow through with discussions as he, at least in the Heller case, ends with:
> Heller: (refused to continue)
and then added the response from Heller that took 8 months:
> Eight months on, Tony finally responded with this rebuttal

See link and "more info" for source of the quotes on Heller:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq2Wv2KHGBc]]>
Mon, 04 Nov 2019 22:28:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14160 http://curi.us/comments/show/14160
Anonymous Productive Global Warming Discussion
https://youtu.be/GIDN1dQ92_w?t=320 this is a clip of the video i was thinking about, and its a part of a larger video about the back and fourth between steven crowder and potholer54. at 5:20 jared says: "[potholer] didnt want to come on saying basically science is science and fact and what is there to discuss"]]>
Mon, 04 Nov 2019 20:29:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14159 http://curi.us/comments/show/14159
Anonymous Productive Global Warming Discussion
also, i think steven crowders "DEBUNKED: Top 5 'Climate Change' Myths" video was banned from youtube. when i use its URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwviDPo4Rh4 it says "Video unavailable
This video is private." on youtube. i can find it on blazetv (a streaming service crowder is affiliated with) with the note "Banned on YouTube >
DEBUNKED Top 5 "Climate Change" Myths" https://www.blazetv.com/video/debunked-top-5-climate-change-myths]]>
Mon, 04 Nov 2019 20:13:03 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14158 http://curi.us/comments/show/14158
why ashamed? Anne B Some of Richard Feynman's Wonderfulness
> why would you be embarrassed or ashamed to do that?

I answered a different question in #13828. I answered what I would have been ashamed about, not why I would have been ashamed.

Anonymous asked again in #13839:

> why do you think you'd be ashamed of those things?

I didn't and don't have an answer. I said it's common in our culture. That implies that my "why" could be the same as many other people's "why"s. But it doesn't say what that "why" is or might be.

I didn't realize at the time that I hadn't answered Anonymous' question. I realized it later when I made a discussion tree of the conversation, as described in this thread:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/fallible-ideas/jr4QWBX6pRU/H33i2oigAQAJ]]>
Mon, 04 Nov 2019 15:23:51 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14157 http://curi.us/comments/show/14157
curi curi's Progress
950 re impasse chains being original and the state of the world where something like that wasn't invented yet (IMO it's low hanging fruit, shouldn't be that hard to invent) and what people do in discussions, how they could miss it. In short, it's because they don't see discussion impasses as *disagreements* meriting truth-seeking discussion.

I sent out newsletter #99. I have been consistent with sending them since I started.

I streamed last night.

Lunch time.]]>
Mon, 04 Nov 2019 13:33:55 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14156 http://curi.us/comments/show/14156
curi curi's Progress
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/fallible-ideas/h6l5mT53VU4/MxQjDOsAAgAJ

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/fallible-ideas/XZiZ6NPwa4A/-ITjR_H_AQAJ

Most of what I wrote in those posts is the same sort of stuff I'd write normally by myself, rather than parochial replies that have much to do with some other person. And I have my text from those posts actually saved as writing in Ulysses (my writing app).

Here's a contrasting example:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/fallible-ideas/03p6dE5tx3c/6fjqmToCAgAJ

I wrote some good stuff in that post but I don't count it towards me writing goal because it's too mixed up with talking with the other guy rather than writing general purpose stuff that stands on its own out of context.

There's one section in the post, starting "All criticism is contextual.", where I could copy/paste that to an article file and expand on it later. Actually I will do that. So that's another 200 words. But for most emails, I get 0 words that I count towards my writing goal.

PS while explaining stuff, I intentionally post word counts in the order I wrote stuff.]]>
Mon, 04 Nov 2019 12:36:27 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14155 http://curi.us/comments/show/14155
curi Productive Global Warming Discussion Mon, 04 Nov 2019 12:30:25 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14154 http://curi.us/comments/show/14154 curi Productive Global Warming Discussion
> He asks for criticism:

> > ...instigate discussion, debate, criticize, point out errors so that I can correct them (with a time and a verbatim quote)

Did he provide mechanisms for ppl to criticize? Have people criticized and he reacted well? Has that happened? Can you link examples?]]>
Mon, 04 Nov 2019 12:24:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14153 http://curi.us/comments/show/14153
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
He takes debate seriously and is interested in truth-seeking and discussion methodology. I think the first ~10 minutes of this video demonstrate that well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7XGOtOSWe4 (the rest of the video is just him addressing some recent controversy he's been in, probably not worth watching.)

When it comes to ethical issues, he calls himself an "egoist", by which he means that he ultimately only cares about his own interests, not about altruism. So he might be open to Oism.

Politically, he's left-wing, but he does frequently defend capitalism over socialism. Though he does believe in a bunch of state intervention. Here's one debate he had where he defended capitalism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7tfIxcQYPU

Epistemology doesn't seem to be one of his main interests, but I think he's some kind of inductivist, maybe a bayesian.

I'd be interested in hearing you talk with him, specifically about ethics, epistemology, or capitalism.]]>
Mon, 04 Nov 2019 08:35:18 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14152 http://curi.us/comments/show/14152
N Productive Global Warming Discussion
He is a former science journalist and geologist that says that he presents the facts regarding GW.
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hadfield_(journalist) )

He asks for criticism:
> ...instigate discussion, debate, criticize, point out errors so that I can correct them (with a time and a verbatim quote)
( https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54/about )

He has made a YT series about climate change called "Climate change explained, and the myths debunked", which he writes the below about.

> There is a lot of inaccurate nonsense about climate science written in blogs and the media, whether exaggerating the effects of climate change or seeking to undermine the science behind it. This series checks the sources of these claims and shows how they have been misinterpreted or deliberately altered. I have no expertise in climatology, I am a former science journalist, so checking facts is what I do. And I always cite these sources so you can check them for yourselves. Along the way, I explain the real science as relayed by researchers in published papers, in a way that makes it easy to understand.

He has said:
> **Of course, the evidence clearly shows that the climate is changing, largely because of man-made gases.**
and about people who do not agree:
>**A parade of scientists (never mind if they have degrees in microbiology or metallurgy) tell them that ocean cycles are reponsible for global warming, or that there is no warming at all, or that even if there is there is nothing to worry about.**
( https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/youtube-climate-change-scepticism )

First video in the playlist:
*1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate*
https://youtu.be/52KLGqDSAjo

His YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54/featured]]>
Mon, 04 Nov 2019 08:35:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14151 http://curi.us/comments/show/14151
N Discussion Trees With Example
This is vague. What did he strawman, according to you, A? What did you actually mean? I do not think that anyone actually understands what you are referring to by "I feel like he strawmanned me". At least I do not understand it. Would you care to explain?]]>
Mon, 04 Nov 2019 00:13:18 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14150 http://curi.us/comments/show/14150
Broken link Alisa Alisa Discussion
The URL I had was:

https://hg.sr.ht/~petrogradphilosopher/fi/rev/3df43f09217cca12b64c456848a4bcb15f882f4cI

That ends in an "l", but the final "l" shouldn't be there. The URL should just be:

https://hg.sr.ht/~petrogradphilosopher/fi/rev/3df43f09217cca12b64c456848a4bcb15f882f4c

I didn't notice the mistake until now. Enough time has passed since I made it that I've forgotten what I was doing when I made it.]]>
Sun, 03 Nov 2019 16:47:40 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14149 http://curi.us/comments/show/14149
Alisa Alisa Discussion
- Added last-updated date
- Added note about checking for words that occur only once in a post]]>
Sun, 03 Nov 2019 16:41:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14148 http://curi.us/comments/show/14148
curi curi's Progress
Edited and posted: https://curi.us/2232-claiming-you-objectively-won-a-debate

Wrote 550 words and posted: https://curi.us/2233-written-and-unwritten-rules-in-discussions]]>
Sun, 03 Nov 2019 15:23:07 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14147 http://curi.us/comments/show/14147
Anonymous Explaining Liberalism in Discussion
https://mises.org/library/mises-last-knight-liberalism-0]]>
Sun, 03 Nov 2019 13:50:26 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14146 http://curi.us/comments/show/14146
Dagny Explaining Liberalism in Discussion
Hayek and Friedman have major anti-capitalist elements. They are liked by ignorant libertarians for their capitalism, but afaik they don't have much to associate them with libertarianism other than their partial advocacy of capitalist economics.]]>
Sun, 03 Nov 2019 13:48:14 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14145 http://curi.us/comments/show/14145
Anonymous Explaining Liberalism in Discussion
Adam Smith

David Hume

Lord Acton

Montesquieu

Tocqueville

Ludwig Von Mises

FA Hayek

Milton Friedman]]>
Sun, 03 Nov 2019 13:35:34 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14144 http://curi.us/comments/show/14144
Dagny Explaining Liberalism in Discussion
classical liberalism is a different set of thinkers, also broad, which is less rationalist and utopian, more reasonable and trying to improve society. it means e.g. limited government and free trade. see also https://freeliberalism.com/liberalism

liberalism is a broad part of the history of western thought. libertarianism hasn't really contributed something new and good or ever been very clear about what it is.]]>
Sun, 03 Nov 2019 12:29:18 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14143 http://curi.us/comments/show/14143
Anonymous Explaining Liberalism in Discussion Sun, 03 Nov 2019 12:18:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14142 http://curi.us/comments/show/14142 curi curi's Progress Sat, 02 Nov 2019 22:43:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14141 http://curi.us/comments/show/14141 Anonymous Politics Discussion Sat, 02 Nov 2019 20:31:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14140 http://curi.us/comments/show/14140 Anonymous Politics Discussion Sat, 02 Nov 2019 20:29:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14139 http://curi.us/comments/show/14139 Anonymous Discussion Trees With Example Sat, 02 Nov 2019 19:57:33 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14138 http://curi.us/comments/show/14138 curi Discussion Trees With Example Sat, 02 Nov 2019 19:53:04 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14137 http://curi.us/comments/show/14137 Anonymous Discussion Trees With Example
Quote: Restate my argument so I know you understood

Discord user says: He's anti-individual.


lul]]>
Sat, 02 Nov 2019 19:49:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14136 http://curi.us/comments/show/14136
Howard Roark Discussion Trees With Example
> For example, I feel like he strawmanned me.

Give a quote and say how that text strawmanned you or what's wrong with it and what you think he should have done.]]>
Sat, 02 Nov 2019 19:11:47 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14135 http://curi.us/comments/show/14135
A Discussion Trees With Example
As did the person in that discord conversation.

I am the case you keep asking for. I'd like to see an example of curi steelmanning someone he has substantial disagreements with.]]>
Sat, 02 Nov 2019 19:01:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14134 http://curi.us/comments/show/14134
Anonymous Politics Discussion Sat, 02 Nov 2019 18:54:38 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14133 http://curi.us/comments/show/14133 Howard Roark Discussion Trees With Example
Mingmecha: He is anti- individual anti- personal responsibility.
curi: what do you mean?
curi: which statement(s) are you getting that from?
Mingmecha:
> Sadly, neither have you. Perhaps you could use this chance to learn how to steelman and attempt to restate my argument in a way that I would endorse it.
Mingmecha: He wants you to do all the work he doesn't want to have to explain himself specifically he thinks it's a group effort
curi: oh do you mean he's bad at responsibility rather than anti (against it intellectually)?
Mingmecha: Yeah maybe I phrased it wrong

In this exchange, curi disagreed with what Mingmecha said, as written. After a little clarification, curi came up with a variant of Mingmecha's that he thought was better – a "steelmanned" version. Mingmecha accepted it.

You should try to answer curi's question to you by attempting to point out a case where you think he made a mistake. You have not made any substantive critical statement and have resisted doing so, in addition to resisting reading what curi had to say about steelmanning (how can you steelman his views if you don't even read what they are?).]]>
Sat, 02 Nov 2019 18:50:40 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14132 http://curi.us/comments/show/14132
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WILL PAY FARMERS $16 BILLION FOR ITS TRADE WAR A Politics Discussion
https://psmag.com/news/the-trump-administration-will-pay-farmers-16-billion-for-its-trade-war]]>
Sat, 02 Nov 2019 18:43:35 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14131 http://curi.us/comments/show/14131
A Discussion Trees With Example
I don't think it changes the steelman part of the discussion but I agree with this response.

Do you have an example of you steelmanning an argument you disagree with? That would change my mind and I'd admit being mistaken.]]>
Sat, 02 Nov 2019 18:39:05 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14130 http://curi.us/comments/show/14130
curi Discussion Trees With Example
I really dislike unwritten rules in many contexts, e.g. a government that doesn't operate by clearly written laws or forum moderators who moderate posts according to unwritten rules. I think this is a major problem with approximately all public intellectuals in general.

With intellectuals, there are two separate sets of rules which are unwritten. The first is the rules for getting a discussion and the second is the rules for how rational discussion works, like what actions are appropriate or inappropriate during a discussion (including, as a key issue, how to rationally end a discussion without mutual agreement).

The lack of clearly documented rules allows for tons of bias. It doesn't just allow bad rules to be hidden, it also allows for rules to be applied inconsistently. It prevents accountability.

Popper, Rand, and other people *who I greatly respect* did not specify rules like this either. I think/hope they would have if I'd suggested it to them. I think it's an important insight about how to be a rational intellectual – it's actually a significant piece of epistemology. The internet has made it more important because it's greatly increased opportunities for discussion with the general public instead of just within a social circle or peer group.]]>
Sat, 02 Nov 2019 18:31:06 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14129 http://curi.us/comments/show/14129
curi Discussion Trees With Example
> I sympathize. Most people suck so putting up all these gates is probably rational.

OK I'm glad you understand. The gates on the email group are basically just formatting emails. The group would not really function without that. People who don't understand how nested quotes work in email can use the website.

It's not just that most people suck but also that I've already written ~50,000 discussion messages talking with most people. So they now suck *repetitively* which is a lot less interesting.

Responding every few days is fine.]]>
Sat, 02 Nov 2019 18:19:34 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14128 http://curi.us/comments/show/14128
Anonymous Discussion Trees With Example Sat, 02 Nov 2019 17:57:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14127 http://curi.us/comments/show/14127 Philosophy is meant to be fun. Discussion Trees With Example
You have a lot of hoops that people have to go through to just have a discussion.


I sympathize. Most people suck so putting up all these gates is probably rational.

I'll be talk to you soon.]]>
Sat, 02 Nov 2019 17:56:50 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14126 http://curi.us/comments/show/14126
curi Discussion Trees With Example Sat, 02 Nov 2019 17:47:10 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14125 http://curi.us/comments/show/14125 Philosophy is meant to be fun Discussion Trees With Example
I think this could be an interesting line of discussion. However, I do not check back frequently and I may not respond again until a few days later.
If you're fine with that we can try.

Personally, I prefer email for serious discussions.]]>
Sat, 02 Nov 2019 17:45:53 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14124 http://curi.us/comments/show/14124
curi Discussion Trees With Example Sat, 02 Nov 2019 17:24:06 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14123 http://curi.us/comments/show/14123 Philosophy is meant to be fun Discussion Trees With Example
I apologize not my intention. Please tell me what you agree with from what I said and we can build from there.

I do not have a blog so if that disqualifies me so be it.]]>
Sat, 02 Nov 2019 16:57:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14122 http://curi.us/comments/show/14122
curi curi's Progress Sat, 02 Nov 2019 15:39:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14121 http://curi.us/comments/show/14121 A Politics Discussion Sat, 02 Nov 2019 14:37:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14120 http://curi.us/comments/show/14120 curi Politics Discussion
>> Had Golden Rice "been allowed to grow in ... [poor] nations, millions of lives would not have been lost to malnutrition, and millions of children would not have gone blind.”

>> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/26/gm-golden-rice-delay-cost-millions-of-lives-child-blindness

> Fuck I didn't know golden rice was being suppressed. wtf. They are blinding people by force. They use guns to get their way and make people obey ... and their way is to deprive people of vitamins so that they can't see.]]>
Sat, 02 Nov 2019 14:00:58 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14119 http://curi.us/comments/show/14119
curi Open Discussion (2019)
The connection with snapchat is clearer because messages literally disappear there. You say it, someone reads it, then it disappears ... a lot like saying something outloud, then hear it, and that's it. For 4chan, they basically claimed the site is so spammy that stuff has to be repeated a ton or it gets lost in the flood of other messages.]]>
Sat, 02 Nov 2019 13:17:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14118 http://curi.us/comments/show/14118
curi Open Discussion (2019)
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnHOyZsmJroxNbv1p-TnXVh-2508EyeZK

> I have not watched it yet. It seemed like the sort of thing that could be good material for criticism on a curi stream though.

I looked but idk what to criticize. They appear to be following the book closely. They aren't expressing their own opinions about the book for me to agree or disagree with.]]>
Sat, 02 Nov 2019 12:59:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14117 http://curi.us/comments/show/14117
curi Rationally Resolving Conflicts of Ideas
I am caught up on the rest.

Documenting this for if/when kieren comes back.]]>
Sat, 02 Nov 2019 12:57:40 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14116 http://curi.us/comments/show/14116
A Discussion Trees With Example Sat, 02 Nov 2019 12:54:10 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14115 http://curi.us/comments/show/14115 curi Discussion Trees With Example
And you are strawmanning me by seeming to assume I disagree with or don't know stuff, much of which I know and agree with.

So see https://elliottemple.com/debate-policy]]>
Sat, 02 Nov 2019 12:37:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14114 http://curi.us/comments/show/14114
Philosophy is meant to be fun. Discussion Trees With Example
Refuting straw mans does nothing for our own argument. This is why The principle of charity or Steelmanning is so important.

*The Principle of Charity is a methodological presumption made in seeking to understand a point of view whereby we seek to understand that view in its strongest, most persuasive form before subjecting the view to evaluation.

While suspending our own beliefs, we seek a sympathetic understanding of the new idea or ideas.

We assume for the moment the new ideas are true even though our initial reaction is to disagree; we seek to tolerate ambiguity for the larger aim of understanding ideas which might prove useful and helpful..

Emphasis is placed on seeking to understand rather than on seeking contradictions or difficulties.

We seek to understand the ideas in their most persuasive form and actively attempt to resolve contradictions. If more than one view is presented, we choose the one that appears the most cogent.*

Can you learn to do this curi?]]>
Sat, 02 Nov 2019 12:33:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14113 http://curi.us/comments/show/14113
Anonymous Discussion Trees With Example
I am not requesting a debate. I think a policy for me, since you have so many it is only fair I share one, is that the person I debate or argue with is capable of intellectual honesty. This includes not strawmanning my arguments and misrepresenting my views.

You have not shown to have the ability to argue in good faith and failed miserably at steelmanning my argument.

As restated here for your convenience:

>If you can't restate your opponent's argument in a way they would endorse it, >then you have not understood it.

>This is bad because if their argument is bad, you don't understand why or how it >is bad. And if their argument contains truth, you would miss that truth.]]>
Sat, 02 Nov 2019 12:26:07 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14112 http://curi.us/comments/show/14112
curi Discussion Trees With Example
I think you're writing low quality comments, so I'm done unless you're willing to request a debate. https://elliottemple.com/debate-policy]]>
Sat, 02 Nov 2019 12:21:34 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14111 http://curi.us/comments/show/14111
Anonymous Discussion Trees With Example
Sadly, neither have you. Perhaps you could use this chance to learn how to steelman and attempt to restate my argument in a way that I would endorse it.]]>
Sat, 02 Nov 2019 12:17:24 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14110 http://curi.us/comments/show/14110
curi Discussion Trees With Example
2) Yes the link is still relevant.

You have not engaged with either thing I said.]]>
Sat, 02 Nov 2019 12:14:55 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14109 http://curi.us/comments/show/14109
Anonymous Discussion Trees With Example
This is bad because if their argument is bad, you don't understand why or how it is bad. And if their argument contains truth, you would miss that truth.

That is all there is to steelmanning, restating the other's argument in the best light possible. Then criticizing that. Does the link you provided address what I said here?]]>
Sat, 02 Nov 2019 12:09:49 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14108 http://curi.us/comments/show/14108
curi Discussion Trees With Example
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/fallible-ideas/4X3vrf5JbXI/cvLVVQavBQAJ]]>
Sat, 02 Nov 2019 12:03:38 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14107 http://curi.us/comments/show/14107
curi Discussion Trees With Example Sat, 02 Nov 2019 12:00:41 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14106 http://curi.us/comments/show/14106 Anonymous Discussion Trees With Example Sat, 02 Nov 2019 11:57:11 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14105 http://curi.us/comments/show/14105 curi Discussion Trees With Example Sat, 02 Nov 2019 10:59:10 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14104 http://curi.us/comments/show/14104 curi Objectivist and Popperian Epistemology Sat, 02 Nov 2019 10:47:22 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14103 http://curi.us/comments/show/14103 Anonymous Politics Discussion
I'm not a fan of the Veritas videos where they harass people on the street for comment in person. I think they're trying to concretize for their audience what "no comment" means more with footage of people actually refusing to answer questions. But I don't like non-consensual IRL interaction aspect.]]>
Fri, 01 Nov 2019 18:37:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14102 http://curi.us/comments/show/14102
Anonymous Tracking Discussions
if u can't understand the objective, logical aspects of the conversation, you are in a bad position to understand other aspects.

the blog post didn't present itself as complete. it's offering some info and tools. the things they help with are important both generally and to the specific goal of dealing with inexplicit knowledge well.]]>
Fri, 01 Nov 2019 17:35:26 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/14101 http://curi.us/comments/show/14101