Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

slatestarcodex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 232 posts

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#211

Post by pdonis »

wharvle wrote: post #205
pdonis wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your claim 2) does not imply your "expect to see" 2). Why? Because democracies don't have to incubate leftist movements in their own country . They can incubate them elsewhere. Which, indeed, they do, as I have said. This, in itself, is not an argument for the "reactionary" claims Scott is arguing against, for reasons I have already given. But it is an argument against Scott's "alternate model". Also, democracies can…

These are interesting claims and points, perhaps, but remain disconnected from the original material. In particular: > They can incubate them elsewhere. Which, indeed, they do, as I have said. This needs an immense amount of development to maybe qualify as both connected-enough to this topic to belong in Scott's piece, and a strong enough claim to be worth either explaining and refuting, or adopting and defending. Yo…

> What I don't find any of this back-and-forth convincing about, is that this piece of Scott's is in error for failing to address this stuff.

Scott's argument--not his anti-Reactionary argument, but his argument in favor of his alternate model--depends on particular historical claims. Those claims are false, and they're false because of the historical errors he makes. Those historical errors are not about small or peripheral points. They are about points that are central to his argument. I have already explicitly quoted and discussed them and I won't repeat them here. I just find it difficult to see how Scott is not in error for failing to spot these historical mistakes that he makes, particularly in view of his reputation for supposedly being much better than average at making valid arguments. Making valid arguments is not just a matter of using reason correctly. It's a matter of reasoning from correct premises, and making sure that you are in fact doing so.

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#212

Post by pdonis »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #190
pdonis wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Democratic party in the US, at least since Woodrow Wilson, has been on the Left. I don't think that is a matter of any serious dispute.

It's a matter of very serious dispute if you were to read people who are actually on the left, or who live outside the USA. The stated policies of the US Democratic Party barely correspond to those of leftist parties worldwide. Their actual policies when in power are even further from those of leftist parties worldwide. So .. are they left of the US Republican Party? No question. Are they "on the left" in any broader…

> It's a matter of very serious dispute if you were to read people who are actually on the left, or who live outside the USA.

Ah, that old standby "No True Scotsman". Sorry, not buying it.

> The stated policies of the US Democratic Party barely correspond to those of leftist parties worldwide.

No political party's stated policies can be taken seriously, since political parties, on immense amounts of historical evidence, will lie about their actual goals as much as they need to to get elected and stay elected.

For example, the Democratic platform that FDR ran on in 1932 did not look very leftist, but the actual things he did once in office were most definitely leftist, and bore no resemblance whatever to the platform he ran on. Did any Democrats object? Hollow laugh.

If you want to argue that the US Democratic party is not as far left as, for example, leftist parties in the UK or Europe, yes, that's probably true. But saying that that means the US Democratic party is not leftist is like saying that the Atlantic Ocean is not an ocean because it doesn't have quite as much water in it as the Pacific.

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#213

Post by dragonwriter »

pdonis wrote: post #212
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a matter of very serious dispute if you were to read people who are actually on the left, or who live outside the USA. The stated policies of the US Democratic Party barely correspond to those of leftist parties worldwide. Their actual policies when in power are even further from those of leftist parties worldwide. So .. are they left of the US Republican Party? No question. Are they "on the left" in any broader…

> It's a matter of very serious dispute if you were to read people who are actually on the left, or who live outside the USA. Ah, that old standby "No True Scotsman". Sorry, not buying it. > The stated policies of the US Democratic Party barely correspond to those of leftist parties worldwide. No political party's stated policies can be taken seriously, since political parties, on immense amounts of historical eviden…

A party that overtly supports capitalism is not a leftist party.

Its at most (in the direction of leftism) center to center-right.

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#214

Post by pdonis »

wharvle wrote: post #205
pdonis wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your claim 2) does not imply your "expect to see" 2). Why? Because democracies don't have to incubate leftist movements in their own country . They can incubate them elsewhere. Which, indeed, they do, as I have said. This, in itself, is not an argument for the "reactionary" claims Scott is arguing against, for reasons I have already given. But it is an argument against Scott's "alternate model". Also, democracies can…

These are interesting claims and points, perhaps, but remain disconnected from the original material. In particular: > They can incubate them elsewhere. Which, indeed, they do, as I have said. This needs an immense amount of development to maybe qualify as both connected-enough to this topic to belong in Scott's piece, and a strong enough claim to be worth either explaining and refuting, or adopting and defending. Yo…

> You're claiming that things like declining to prosecute a war against the USSR after WWII is an example of an action that acted as an outlet for what would otherwise have become domestic US leftist political violence in the US.

I am making no such claim. My claim is simpler: Scott's argument is that "liberal democracies" are the best way to prevent "state-sponsored violence". But that argument can't possibly be valid if "liberal democracies" in fact cause violence in other countries.

Scott's rebuttal to that claim is to gerrymander the definition of "state-sponsored violence" so that it only counts if it's against the citizens of the "liberal democracies" themselves. But that is exactly the problem: people like Scott can pat themselves on the back about how great "liberal democracies" are only by ignoring the historical record of "liberal democracies" sponsoring all kinds of violence in other states besides their own.

If Scott were to remove the blinders he put on by defining "state-sponsored violence" in such a narrow way and take an honest look at the historical record of "liberal democracies", he would never have even tried to write such an article. Instead he would be directing his intellectual resources towards a much more useful inquiry: why do "liberal democracies" sponsor so much violence in other countries--especially when, in every other country besides their own, sponsoring all that violence never even leads to liberal democracy? Why don't they see the obvious contradiction between their stated principles and the actual results of their actions? But that question isn't even on Scott's radar, because of his ignorance of history.

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#215

Post by postmodest »

helicalmix wrote: post #11
bongripper wrote: post #3

>I don’t think I’m overselling myself too much to expect that I could argue circles around the average uneducated person. Like I mean that on most topics, I could demolish their position and make them look like an idiot. Reduce them to some form of “Look, everything you say fits together and I can’t explain why you’re wrong, I just know you are!” Or, more plausibly, “Shut up I don’t want to talk about this!” > And th…

If anything, Scott is underselling himself, and could probably argue circles against the average educated person. Debates are the rationalists bread and butter, and you should expect them to be better at you the same way you would expect a trained boxer to beat you in a fistfight.

LLM's have really made me realize that "using language" is a shallow skill, but detecting bullshit is a deep skill.

And anyone who read Velikovsky and thought they had made a good argument, is someone who needs to hone the deeper skillset.

Debate isn't genius. There are famous politicians who were RENOWN in law school for their debate skills, who are clearly idiots. Holding up debate skills as an intellectual achievement is like praising someone for their ability to hold in a fart.

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#216

Post by pdonis »

dragonwriter wrote: post #213
pdonis wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a matter of very serious dispute if you were to read people who are actually on the left, or who live outside the USA. Ah, that old standby "No True Scotsman". Sorry, not buying it. > The stated policies of the US Democratic Party barely correspond to those of leftist parties worldwide. No political party's stated policies can be taken seriously, since political parties, on immense amounts of historical eviden…

A party that overtly supports capitalism is not a leftist party. Its at most (in the direction of leftism) center to center-right.

> A party that overtly supports capitalism is not a leftist party.

I'm not sure how the US Democratic party "overtly supports capitalism", since it is the party of government micromanagement of every aspect of business.

I'm also not sure how leftism is inconsistent with support of capitalism, unless the latter is taken to imply a complete rejection of socialism. Which is certainly not a good description of the US Democratic party. To the extent it does "support" capitalism, it is only as one aspect of a society which the party wants to organize along mostly socialist lines.

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#217

Post by leshow »

> Even the smartest people I know have a commendable tendency not to take certain ideas seriously. Bostrom’s simulation argument, the anthropic doomsday argument, Pascal’s Mugging – I’ve never heard anyone give a coherent argument against any of these, but I’ve also never met anyone who fully accepts them and lives life according to their implications.

Maybe you ought to think about why that is? I wonder why "smart" people don't live their lives according to magical situations with no bearing in reality?

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#218

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

pdonis wrote: post #212
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a matter of very serious dispute if you were to read people who are actually on the left, or who live outside the USA. The stated policies of the US Democratic Party barely correspond to those of leftist parties worldwide. Their actual policies when in power are even further from those of leftist parties worldwide. So .. are they left of the US Republican Party? No question. Are they "on the left" in any broader…

> It's a matter of very serious dispute if you were to read people who are actually on the left, or who live outside the USA. Ah, that old standby "No True Scotsman". Sorry, not buying it. > The stated policies of the US Democratic Party barely correspond to those of leftist parties worldwide. No political party's stated policies can be taken seriously, since political parties, on immense amounts of historical eviden…

No, it's like saying that Walden Pond is not an ocean because it doesn't have quite as much water in it as the Atlantic or Pacific.

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#219

Post by NhanH »

c0pium wrote: post #201
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say that's excessive. An hour max would be more reasonable otherwise you're just creating a discouraging workplace. Note that would be an hour of real effort though, not half arsed googling. Making a genuine effort is more important than the time taken.

The amount of time is entirely dependent on what kind of work it is and what kind of blocked you are. Can’t get your build to succeed? Ask for help quickly. Can’t get your research model to produce useful results on the first try? Maybe try a few things first.

Yeah, it's a bit disheartening to hear some (presumably) experienced people advocates for never allowing the junior to dig and deal with things on their owns.

I can imagine the scenario where a build fail due to some missing incantations that needs to be invoked, and sure, you shouldn't spend more than 15 minutes on trying to resolve it. But that should be rare, while the common blockers for junior tend to be their lack of understanding in even bog-standard systems and situations (why can't system X do Y, why did person Z require A). In those cases, part of the expectation when assigning them the work would be for the junior to learn those on their own.

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#220

Post by godelski »

speak_plainly wrote: post #116

After spending many years studying philosophy I think that the right approach is that you don’t need to come to any conclusions about anything. Aristotle often started with common peoples’ viewpoints on any given topic, along with looking at what experts thought and built his own ideas from there, and of course was very successful with his methodology. Arguments are interesting and obviously some are more correct tha…

To speak to this directly in a scientific setting I find one of the most beneficial thing I can do when exploring a new domain is to NOT read works first. But instead to first ponder how I would go about solving the problem, maybe do some naive attempts, and THEN read. An iterative cycle of this becomes successful because of a few typical outcomes: you spend more time but generally come away with a deep understanding of motivation and why the field has moved in the direction that it now exists in (which helps you understand where to go next!) and/or in this process you find assumptions made to simplify a problem but has been forgotten and can be readdressed (at worse you have a deeper appreciation for the naive assumption). I do think this process is slower, but I find it frequently results in deeper understanding. It is (for me) faster if your intent is to understand, but slower if your intent is to do things quickly. I find that with the typical method of review to catchup without the struggling generally results in me not having a good understanding of many of the underlying assumptions or nuance at play (I think this is a common outcome, beyond my own experience). YMMV and it may vary dependent on your goals with a specific area and cross-domain knowledge. But I find great pleasure in it because it causes me to consider many things beautiful and genius where I would have otherwise saw them as obvious and and mundane. That alone is enough for me because research is a grueling task with endless and frequent failure but this helps keep me motivated and keeps things "fun" (in the way I think Feynman was describing). It's not dissimilar from doing your homework, checking someone else's work/a solution manual, and then trying to figure out where your mistakes are rather than simply correcting them. Similarly, time constraints are a pain so such a process isn't always possible and certainly not as often as I'd like.
Post reply on HN