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

Scott Alexander's correction on ivermectin and its meaning for the rationalists

doyourownresearch.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 100 posts

Re: Scott Alexander's correction on ivermectin and its meaning for the rationalists

#51

Post by orwin »

adamisom wrote: post #36
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

It’s more Spock-like than rationalist-culture-like. It’s clearly poor rhetoric and doesn’t jibe with anything I personally associate with the rationalist sphere. This really seems representative to you? If so I had no idea their image problem was so bad with so many HNers.

I'd admit the first sentence seemed straight out of any lesswrong post. The following are too condensed to be real, and i understood it was a joke, but i think i wouldn't be surprised to find this sprinkled in the middle of a long rambling in any SA comments.

Re: Scott Alexander's correction on ivermectin and its meaning for the rationalists

#52

Post by kelseyfrog »

adamrezich wrote: post #24
IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should consider the possibility that this is parody.

why? what am I missing?

In style and content it max-es out on the "I am very smart" scale. So-called rationalists will comb through comments they see as oppositional and accuse them as being emotional as a way to "win" the "argument". It's funny that in the thread about rationalism someone posted a comment that checks off all the boxes. It's really well done.

Re: Scott Alexander's correction on ivermectin and its meaning for the rationalists

#54

Post by adamrezich »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #52
adamrezich wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why? what am I missing?

In style and content it max-es out on the "I am very smart" scale. So-called rationalists will comb through comments they see as oppositional and accuse them as being emotional as a way to "win" the "argument". It's funny that in the thread about rationalism someone posted a comment that checks off all the boxes. It's really well done.

I've never been too familiar with the whole "rationalist" sphere or whatever but assuming what you're saying is true, does this mean that now, the mere act of pointing out the fact that someone is using emotionally-charged language or otherwise indicating an emotional appeal is being made, cannot be done without immediately triggering a "lol typical 'rationalist' take, such dispassion, very sophist, wow" type of response?

if so, that seems like a net loss for everyone.

these days I am always on the lookout for indications of the existence of heuristics that allow people to dismiss things out of hand using surface-level analysis, and I attempt to be as mindful about these things as possible, in order to most efficiently pursue Truth by attempting to let such things cloud my judgement as little as possible. hopefully this doesn't make me one of these apparently hated "rational" types...!

Re: Scott Alexander's correction on ivermectin and its meaning for the rationalists

#55

Post by Retric »

dekhn wrote: post #48
DonHopkins wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

You're wrong; countries use medicine. There are national formularies which determine by and large what medicines are allowed to be used. This is not hard and fast, doctors are given wide latitude to prescribe medicine for off-label usage, but I think Sinovac and Sputnik V are both examples where "countries" use a medicine. There are many other examples outside of COVID.

You can interpret the phrase in several different ways but it doesn’t have any specific generally accepted meaning.

Aka “Does America use LSD?” Is presumably different from “Do Americans use LSD?” but it’s not clear what it’s asking.

Re: Scott Alexander's correction on ivermectin and its meaning for the rationalists

#56

Post by robonerd »

reducesuffering wrote: post #38
robonerd wrote: post #7

Pursuit of rationality can be paradoxical in a sense, insofar as believing yourself capable attaining rationality is fundamentally irrational. You aren't a Vulcan, you're a Human. To err is human. All humans are irrational some of the time and if you believe yourself capable of being better than that, you're only proving yourself wrong with that very belief. Rationality done right is the pursuit of an unobtainable go…

This is what rationalists like to refer to as a strawman. Show me any example of one claiming to eventually be without err or irrationality. The claims are simply that most people have many implicit biases and illogical means, and that there are some ways of bettering your thinking methods.

> Show me any example of one claiming to eventually be without err or irrationality.

Interact with them long enough and you'll come across a whole lot who act like it.

What do you even think I'm strawmanning? That comment is a defense of Scott Alexander and rationalists generally.

Re: Scott Alexander's correction on ivermectin and its meaning for the rationalists

#57

Post by DonHopkins »

the_only_law wrote: post #25
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

It really did trip me up, in the first sentence mostly. Because that’s a commonplace counter argument on HN in general. Any thread with even mild controversy I expect to see multiple comments leading the way GP did. Green accounts nowadays make me wary as well. At one point I put show dead on to help vouch for green accounts that started in shadowban mode, but now it feels like a 50% a new account was created very re…

No post body was provided.

Re: Scott Alexander's correction on ivermectin and its meaning for the rationalists

#58

Post by dekhn »

Retric wrote: post #55
dekhn wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're wrong; countries use medicine. There are national formularies which determine by and large what medicines are allowed to be used. This is not hard and fast, doctors are given wide latitude to prescribe medicine for off-label usage, but I think Sinovac and Sputnik V are both examples where "countries" use a medicine. There are many other examples outside of COVID.

You can interpret the phrase in several different ways but it doesn’t have any specific generally accepted meaning. Aka “Does America use LSD?” Is presumably different from “Do Americans use LSD?” but it’s not clear what it’s asking.

Does America use LSD? Hell yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKUltra

Re: Scott Alexander's correction on ivermectin and its meaning for the rationalists

#59

Post by guerrilla »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #18
topgun77 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

People should consider the possibility that this is parody.

They were serious (which you can see in flagged/grey comments they keep leaving.)

Re: Scott Alexander's correction on ivermectin and its meaning for the rationalists

#60

Post by Retric »

dekhn wrote: post #58
Retric wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can interpret the phrase in several different ways but it doesn’t have any specific generally accepted meaning. Aka “Does America use LSD?” Is presumably different from “Do Americans use LSD?” but it’s not clear what it’s asking.

Does America use LSD? Hell yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKUltra

Use is present tense.
Post reply on HN