Search Ideas
809 ideas match your query.:
Summary
People are losing their ability to think and act on principles. But they need principles to set long-range goals and make decisions. Without them, people become their own destroyers. Modern philosophy is to blame because it attacks reason.
To stop this suicidal trend, we need to understand the following rules about principles and the relationship between principles and goals:
First, when two men or groups are in conflict while having the same basic principles, the more consistent one will win.
Since they are in conflict, at least one of them must be inconsistent. So the one with the clearer vision of his goal, who more consistently works toward it, will win. The less consistent one just hastens his adversary’s victory and becomes weaker in the process.
This dynamic applies regardless of the merits of their shared principles.
Example: republicans vs democrats. Both agree that the government should interfere with the economy. They just disagree on implementation details. Democrats are more consistently committed to growing government power; the republicans just end up “me-too’ing” them. Recent example.
As a result, government control has been growing over the decades. It will continue to grow until the communists replace socialists and ‘achieve’ “universal immolation”.
This trend can seem inevitable. Some people mistake it for historicism, but it can be reversed by a change of basic principles.
Second, when two men or groups collaborate while having different basic principles, the more evil or irrational one will win.
Mixing opposing basic principles favors bad ones and drives out the good ones. “What is the moral status of an honest man who steals once in a while?”
When good and evil collaborate, it hurts good and helps evil. The good has nothing to gain from evil, while evil stands to gain everything from the good.
Example: collaboration between an honest businessman and a swindler. The swindler does not contribute to the success of the business; the honest one’s reputation ends up luring in more victims than the swindler could have fooled on his own.
Another example: membership of the Soviet Union in the UN. The resulting collaboration between the West and the Soviet Union gave the latter unearned respect, moral sanction, and access to resources. In exchange, the Western world has been swallowed by “cynicism, bitterness, hopelessness, fear and nameless guilt…”
Third, defining opposite basic principles clearly and openly helps rationality; hiding or evading them helps irrationality.
The rational side of a conflict wants to be understood. It’s in harmony with reality, so it has nothing to hide. But the irrational side “has to deceive, to confuse, to evade, to hide its goals.”
The good, the rational must be actively upheld; the bad, the irrational is achieved only by default, by not acting. Construction is hard; destruction is easy.
Lessons
Adhere to your principles with consistency.
Never mix opposing basic principles! Leave irrational/evil people to the consequences of their errors.
Be open and transparent; don’t hide things.
Summary
People are losing their ability to think and act on principles. But they need principles to set long-range goals and make decisions. Without them, people become their own destroyers. Modern philosophy is to blame because it attacks reason.
To stop this suicidal trend, we need to understand the following rules about principles and the relationship between principles and goals:
First, when two men or groups are in conflict while having the same basic principles, the more consistent one will win.
Since they are in conflict, at least one of them must be inconsistent. So the one with the clearer vision of his goal, who more consistently works toward it, will win. The less consistent one just hastens his adversary’s victory and becomes weaker in the process.
This dynamic applies regardless of the merits of their shared principles.
Example: republicans vs democrats. Both agree that the government should interfere with the economy. They just disagree on implementation details. Democrats are more consistently committed to growing government power; the republicans just end up “me-too’ing” them. Recent example.
As a result, government control has been growing over the decades. It will continue to grow until the communists replace socialists and ‘achieve’ “universal immolation”.
This trend can seem inevitable. Some people mistake it for historicism, but it can be reversed by a change of basic principles.
Second, when two men or groups collaborate while having different basic principles, the more evil or irrational one will win.
Mixing opposing basic principles favors bad ones and drives out the good ones. “What is the moral status of an honest man who steals once in a while?”
When good and evil collaborate, it hurts good and helps evil. The good has nothing to gain from evil, while evil stands to gain everything from the good.
Example: collaboration between an honest businessman and a swindler. The swindler does not contribute to the success of the business; the honest one’s reputation ends up luring in more victims than the swindler could have fooled on his own.
Another example: membership of the Soviet Union in the UN. The resulting collaboration between the West and the Soviet Union gave the latter unearned respect, moral sanction, and access to resources. In exchange, the Western world has been swallowed by “cynicism, bitterness, hopelessness, fear and nameless guilt…”
Third, defining opposite basic principles clearly and openly helps rationality; hiding or evading them helps irrationality.
The rational side of a conflict wants to be understood. It’s in harmony with reality, so it has nothing to hide. But the irrational side “has to deceive, to confuse, to evade, to hide its goals.”
The good, the rational must be actively upheld; the bad, the irrational is achieved only by default, by not acting. Construction is hard; destruction is easy.
Lesson
Never mix opposing basic principles! Leave irrational/evil people to the consequences of their errors.
How Do Bounties Work?
Bounties let you invite criticism and reward high-quality contributions with real money.
Bounties are in beta. Expect things to break.
How do I participate?
Next, browse the list of bounties. Click a bounty’s dollar amount to view its page, review the bountied idea and the terms, and submit a criticism on that idea.
That’s it – you’re in.
How do I get paid?
Each bounty enters a review period roughly five days after it starts (the exact date is shown on the bounty page). The review period lasts 24 hours. During this time, the bounty owner reviews submissions and rejects only those that don’t meet the stated terms.
To be eligible for a payout, all of the following must be true:
- Your submission is a direct criticism of the bountied idea.
- Your submission has no pending counter-criticisms when the review period begins.
- Your submission meets the bounty terms and the site-wide terms.
- You’ve connected a Stripe account in good standing before the review period ends.
The bounty owner is never eligible to receive payouts from their own bounty.
Note that counter-criticisms are not constrained by the bounty-specific terms. Only direct criticisms of the bountied idea are.
How much will I get paid?
The bounty amount is prorated among all eligible submissions.
For example, if there are ten eligible criticisms and you contributed two of them, you receive 20% of the bounty.
Fractions of cents are not paid out.
How do I run a bounty?
Click the megaphone button next to an idea (near bookmark, archive, etc.).
Set a bounty amount and write clear terms describing the kinds of criticisms you’re willing to pay for. Then enter your credit-card details to authorize the amount plus a 5% bounty fee.
Your card is authorized, not charged, when the bounty starts.
The bounty typically runs for five to seven days, depending on your card’s authorization window. Toward the end, a 24-hour review period begins. During this time, review submissions and reject those that don’t meet your terms. Submissions you don’t reject are automatically accepted at the end of the review period and become eligible for payout. Your card is then charged the full authorization.
If you reject all submissions, your card is never charged.
Can I fund an existing bounty?
Yes. Review the bounty terms. If you agree with them, click the ‘Add funding’ button on the bounty page and follow the next steps. At this point, your card is authorized but not charged.
If the bounty owner accepts any submissions during the review period, your card is charged the full authorization. If he rejects all submissions, your card is never charged.
Funders are never eligible to receive payouts from a bounty they funded.
Start a bounty today. Terms apply.
@liberty-fitz-claridge says (#3885) it’d be implausible for HTV to be justificationist since that would contradict the rest of Deutsch’s anti-justificationist philosophy.
Veritula implements unanimous consent …
I just realized that this notion also maps onto Ayn Rand’s idea that “there are no conflicts of interests among rational men.” (From The Virtue of Selfishness.)
There’s a reason rationality means lack of conflict.
Veritula implements unanimous consent …
I just realized that this notion also maps onto Ayn Rand’s idea that “there are no conflicts of interests among rational men.” (From The Virtue of Selfishness.)
There’s a reason rationality means lack of conflict.
Been trying a slight modification of bounties in prod for a couple of weeks or so. Working well so far.
@dirk-meulenbelt recently offered to chip in for a bounty I want to run. That got me thinking: multiple people should be able to fund bounties.
How would you preview text in nodes?
@tyler-mills says:
… I’m finding the threads a bit cumbersome to keep track of. Would love an option to have each top level idea in a column, and horizontal scrolling would be fine with me if there are many of them.
You need to mark your submission as a criticism if you want it to be eligible for a payout from the bounty.
… people go their whole lives resisting their passions, and are secure.
Physically maybe. I can’t look into those people’s minds but I suspect they don’t ever really feel psychologically secure. It takes a certain kind of mind to have physical security, rather than fulfillment, as one’s main concern for one’s whole life. https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/self-esteem.html
How can the conflict be resolved?
By coming up with a new option that has no pending criticisms. We can’t state those in advance.
How Do Bounties Work?
Bounties let you invite criticism and reward high-quality contributions with real money.
Bounties are in beta. Expect things to break.
How do I participate?
Next, browse the list of bounties. Click a bounty’s dollar amount to view its page, review the bountied idea and the terms, and submit a criticism on that idea.
That’s it – you’re in.
How do I get paid?
Each bounty enters a review period roughly five days after it starts (the exact date is shown on the bounty page). The review period lasts 24 hours. During this time, the bounty owner reviews submissions and rejects only those that don’t meet the stated terms.
To be eligible for a payout, all of the following must be true:
- Your submission is a direct criticism of the bountied idea.
- Your submission has no pending counter-criticisms when the review period begins.
- Your submission meets the bounty terms and the site-wide terms.
- You’ve connected a Stripe account in good standing before the review period ends.
The bounty owner is never eligible to receive payouts from their own bounty.
Note that counter-criticisms are not constrained by the bounty-specific terms. Only direct criticisms of the bountied idea are.
How much will I get paid?
The bounty amount is prorated among all eligible submissions.
For example, if there are ten eligible criticisms and you contributed two of them, you receive 20% of the bounty.
Fractions of cents are not paid out. Amounts below USD 0.50 are not paid out.
How do I run a bounty?
Click the megaphone button next to an idea (near bookmark, archive, etc.).
Set a bounty amount and write clear terms describing the kinds of criticisms you’re willing to pay for. Then enter your credit card details to authorize the amount plus a 5% bounty fee.
Your card is authorized, not charged, when the bounty starts.
The bounty typically runs for five to seven days, depending on your card’s authorization window. After around five days, a 24-hour review period begins. During this time, review submissions and reject those that don’t meet your terms. Submissions you don’t reject are automatically accepted at the end of the review period and become eligible for payout. Your card is then charged.
If no eligible criticisms are accepted, your card is never charged.
Start a bounty today. Terms apply.
FWIW, if I was hiring, and I was looking at a resume of someone who always ‘played it safe’ and was very concerned about what others think, I wouldn’t hire them. Whereas I would hire someone who takes smart risks and cares about truth over popularity, even if they have a resume ‘gap’.
It does sound like Deutsch thinks all these different criteria boil down to being about hard vs easy to vary, see #3807.
Liberty responded (1:39:46) that that quote is misleading because it makes it sound like hard to vary is the only criterion people use when making decisions, which can’t be true. There are other criteria, like “consistency with data”, “logical consistency”, “fitting in with existing theories”, etc.
Liberty said (at 1:38:39) hard to vary isn’t a method of decision-making. It’s a factor people take into account when they make decisions, but decision-making itself is a creative process.
Not according to Deutsch. He says hard to vary is epistemologically fundamental, that all progress is based on it. For example, he phrases testability in terms of hard to vary (BoI chapter 1):
When a formerly good explanation has been falsified by new observations, it is no longer a good explanation, because the problem has expanded to include those observations. Thus the standard scientific methodology of dropping theories when refuted by experiment is implied by the requirement for good explanations.
For Deutsch, hard to vary is the key mode of criticism, not just one of many.
fundamental
@zelalem-mekonnen suggested during a space (37:36) that hard to vary is just one mode of criticism.
@dirk-meulenbelt suggested in a space (at 21:30) that a bunch of epistemology is underspecified. There are many epistemological concepts (like criterion of democracy, falsifiability, etc.) that we don’t know enough about to express in code.
During a space, starting at around 15:00, @dirk-meulenbelt suggested that Veritula suffers from underspecification: it does not specify which kinds of criticisms users can submit. But there are lots, like Occam’s razor, hard to vary, lack of testability, etc.
Since I criticize Deutsch’s ‘hard to vary’ criterion for being underspecified, Veritula shouldn’t be underspecified either.
(Correct me if I misunderstood you here, @dirk-meulenbelt.)
What if we simply clamp the score at 0?
But calling a theory ‘good’ sounds like an endorsement. Deutsch also writes (BoI chapter 10) that a “superb” theory is “exceedingly hard to vary”. Ultimately we’d have to ask him, but for now I think it’s fair to conclude that he means ‘hard to vary’ as an endorsement.
@lola-trimble suggested during a space that a theory is hard to vary if it’s not easy to vary. So the maximum score would be 0, not +1,000 or whatever. In which case ‘hard to vary’ isn’t an endorsement.