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

Plans you're not supposed to talk about

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 675 posts

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#211

Post by hutzlibu »

mherdeg wrote: post #202
hutzlibu wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be a very, very bad plan we are not talking about, because it would make people so radical, that in the end they rather shoot people of the other tribe, than getting the shot. (and that already happened) It would make them form secret circles, where they only talk or listen to each other further radicalising themself. And they do not have a choice, because they have their dogma of vaccine == poison - so th…

So I mean, the very first antivaccine movement involved firebombs ( https://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/13/1/82 ) not to mention some questionable research ethics; maybe none of this is really new. Your comment reminds me of something I read a few years back and CANNOT find again which I think said something like: * The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria for a delusional disorder have so…

Well, I don't know anyone who has the absolute truth, and people claiming they do is a good sign for me to avoid them.

So in general I am very tolerant for weirdos and the general right of people to live their own ways, if they are not harming me.

But I think it is a bad idea pushing people further into radicalisation amd isolation and this is what I see is happening now worldwide, on a new scale unseen before.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#212

Post by czbond »

veqz wrote: post #189
czbond wrote: post #178

Even if G*d didn't exist, one probably can't prove either way. So, from a risk/reward payoff, it seems believing is a higher payoff than not. And from a purely emotionless approach, if you're a Western religion (Christian) you don't have a high bar to cross. Just believe, no deeds or acts are required. That is a high ROI trade either way. [Edit: I am not endorsing a specific Western Religion, I'm giving an example. I…

Pascal's wager. But the big flaw there is rather straightforward: which god? Is worshiping a false god better or worse than not worshiping at all? Should one avoid eating pork in case the Jewish/Islamic god is real? Or maybe avoid eating beef in case the Hindu religions are the true ones? Or maybe the Jains have it figured out, and you should really be vegan to be safe? Perhaps the Aztecs were right, and we're way ov…

I think Pascal's wager didn't take the final logical step. A G0d knows that any worship on Earth is meant for them. It's like a symlink

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#213

Post by BurningFrog »

tshaddox wrote: post #143
danblick wrote: post #83

The author presents the idea that "you may be born into a culture with social practices that you don't understand but that work for your benefit; they may work better if you don't understand them!" I find this idea a little repellant, but it's something Friedrich Hayek wrote about too. (In my mind Hayek is the person most associated with distributed knowledge.) ~"You may not understand the forces that have led societ…

This sentiment seems completely useless (actually incredibly dangerous) without at least some attempt at explaining how we might distinguish between aspects of society which seem terrible but are actually secretly good even though no one knows why, and aspects of society which seem terrible because they're terrible.

You ask a difficult and important question.

The two relevant ideas I know are:

1. Chesterton's Fence: "I don't understand why this exists, so let's tear it down" is an big and tempting error. Wait until you understand.

2. Consequences of societal change are inherently unknowable, which is why revolutions usually end in tragedy. The sane approach is to change society incrementally, see what happens, and adjust and learn as you go.

The educated reader may notice that 1+2 is pretty much the sane version of Conservatism.

I'm not a conservative myself, but as I've grown older and wiser, I've come to understand and respect the philosophy.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#214

Post by carrolldunham »

throwaway3b03 wrote: post #201

Why does it take me something like one paragraph to recognize that someone is from the Lesswrong sphere? (I was myself a part of the community at one point, before it became a cult)

Before clicking the article I read your comment and guessed that the article might start with a lazily-technicalizing analogy, like "So what does shame feel like? Well, imagine you have two beehives, named A and B, with hive A having A_n bees..." and it more or less does. I say its lazy because when you write there's work in translating your mind-pictures into prose but the lesswrongs are content to describe the sketch. It's like reading someone's pre-verbalized verbal reasoning "So the hmph goes on the blah which is nnh so it's ok".

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#215

Post by czbond »

manquer wrote: post #197
czbond wrote: post #178

Even if G*d didn't exist, one probably can't prove either way. So, from a risk/reward payoff, it seems believing is a higher payoff than not. And from a purely emotionless approach, if you're a Western religion (Christian) you don't have a high bar to cross. Just believe, no deeds or acts are required. That is a high ROI trade either way. [Edit: I am not endorsing a specific Western Religion, I'm giving an example. I…

Not high bar ? Financially there is significant amount of contribution expected to be made, in some countries like Germany the state even now would collect it on behalf of the church ( Catholic) ! I don't even know if it is possible to officially declare Catholic to the State and not pay the taxes. Ethically joining a religion would also mean you are tacitly approving every horror that religion as an institution is c…

All of the encumbrances you listed are made by humans. You can sit in the forest with the religious book of your choice and get you all you need... and never have to talk to a soul, or participate, or give money. You listed human blockades

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#216

Post by walterbell »

mikewarot wrote: post #43
crmd wrote: post #6

They lost me at the dangers of ultrasonic humidifiers.

If you put tap water in an ultrasonic humidifier, there actually is a level of danger created. Here's what appears to be a fair and balanced google search result - https://www.childrenscolorado.org/conditions-and-advice/pare...

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency made a similar observation in 1991, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29559021

> ultrasonic and impeller (or "cool mist") humidifiers can disperse materials, such as microorganisms and minerals, from their water tanks into indoor air

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#217

Post by norswap »

taraskuzyk wrote: post #188

I would really appreciate it if someone could help me understand what the last few sentences of it meant, it kind of flew over my head: "So I guess this is kind of an argument in favor of humility, or against open-mindedness. If you have high openness to experience (and if you read this without a gun to your head, you probably do) you might wonder why so many people have low openness. Maybe this is part of why." What…

A big part of "the normal way" things are done is related to subtle (and by-design, unspoken) social reasons.

If you are open-minded, you're open to considering that the normal ways things are done might not be the best way -- which it is not along all axes, but it does incur some advantages for reasons that must remain unspoken for the advantages to be incurred.

This has two potentially bad consequences: (1) you might come to miss the advantages provided, and (2) you might erode the effectiveness of the deceitful mechanism.

An easy example is open relationships. They're difficult to navigate and often end in drama. (Personal opinion: they're awesome but require a ton of emotional maturity, and some time, to make work.) The lie here is that romantic commitment is a sacred value -- in reality it's a way to bind yourself to avoid the instability and hurt that can easily result from open relationships.

If you're not able to handle open relationships, your open-mindedness will have hurt you. And if you want to return to monogamy, your lack of belief in romantic commitment might be an impediment too.

People get burned by their open-mindedness a few times, or see examples of people getting burned around them, and they shut that part down.

It's the essence of conservatism: a belief that it's easier to break something that works than to improve things. (Forget politics, you can just think about this at the personal level.)

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#218

Post by czbond »

njarboe wrote: post #187
czbond wrote: post #178

Even if G*d didn't exist, one probably can't prove either way. So, from a risk/reward payoff, it seems believing is a higher payoff than not. And from a purely emotionless approach, if you're a Western religion (Christian) you don't have a high bar to cross. Just believe, no deeds or acts are required. That is a high ROI trade either way. [Edit: I am not endorsing a specific Western Religion, I'm giving an example. I…

This idea is called Pascal's wager. What if what G*d really wants is for people not to believe in G*d and those that do are sent to hell? How do you know the mind of G*d?

Yes it is. But taking the highest probabilistic chance, with the highest ROI, and lowest downside seems the best right? It is better than arguing what ifs, and nuances all day?

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#219

Post by imgabe »

czbond wrote: post #210
alasdair_ wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if believing in one specific god pisses off the “real” god when you die and you go to hell for believing in the wrong god, while not believing in any god gets you a free pass? If we’re making up unfalsifiable claims then this seems just as likely to happen as not.

Any enlightened G0d would know that humans minds are limited, and thus the worship of any G*d is actually meant for them. Thus no problem. [Italics are being inserted by HN]

God is not a swear word. You don't need to censor it.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#220

Post by czbond »

analog31 wrote: post #198
czbond wrote: post #178

Even if G*d didn't exist, one probably can't prove either way. So, from a risk/reward payoff, it seems believing is a higher payoff than not. And from a purely emotionless approach, if you're a Western religion (Christian) you don't have a high bar to cross. Just believe, no deeds or acts are required. That is a high ROI trade either way. [Edit: I am not endorsing a specific Western Religion, I'm giving an example. I…

What if threatening people causes suffering on earth?

Of course it does. Every country in the world has caused grievances on itself, it's people, and others in the name of a religion. Never particular to one region, religion, or belief.

Most teach some sort of humbleness, kindness, etc. But humans still act like crappy, unintelligent, low level beings.... because we are just that, low level.

Post reply on HN