Maybe if more people play lotteries, there will be more competition and the odds will get better. Eventually most lotteries will be perfectly fair with an EV of exactly 0. All we need to do is fight against negative stereotypes of gambling until this utopia is achieved.
-
-
Replying to @RokoMijic @RokoMijicUK and
I mean, maybe! It's an empirical question! (How does the particular lottery mechanism actually work, in the real world?) You can't answer empirical questions with clichéd political humor! (Although you might have more detailed arguments that don't fit in a Tweet.)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zackmdavis @ciphergoth and
There's always the "empirical question" possibility of any particular insane lie actually being good. Lies are guilty until proven innocent for very good reasons. cc:
@0x49fa98 ,@CovfefeAnon3 replies 1 retweet 20 likes -
Replying to @RokoMijic @RokoMijicUK and
Roko, you're being retarded. There is in fact cross-cultural variation in what stories are told (the analogue of "media representation") and social roles. I'm saying there's a stories→roles arrow in the causal graph which isn't there in the lottery search engine analogy. 1/3
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @zackmdavis @RokoMijicUK and
I agree that the Zeitgeist is broken in many ways, but dismissing it as "lies" is too simplistic and high-level of a critique to be useful—a form of running away from the actual social-engineering problem of what makes a cultural "prior" functional. 2/3
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @zackmdavis @RokoMijicUK and
It's bad enough that my mainstream peeps are retarded about this stuff (as their Cathedral does not permit them the AI capability of Speech). If you do have Speechtech, use it on something interesting (like honest social science) rather than right-wing loyalty signaling! 3/3
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @zackmdavis @ciphergoth and
> the actual social-engineering problem of what makes a cultural "prior" functional OK, but look at it this way: (A) We don't know what code is best here. (B) OK, how about we insert this random line of code (A) No, let's not do that (B) But you don't know what's correct!
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @RokoMijic @zackmdavis and
Furthermore, nobody is actually testing this in a systematic way. This is doing your testing in prod on a societal level, on a mission-critical app with no backup.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @RokoMijic @zackmdavis and
Under these circumstances, it makes sense to be conservative and do what already worked.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RokoMijic @zackmdavis and
I have no idea what the full solution space of human society looks likes. Really, how could I claim to know that? But I have enough experience with complex, opaque systems to know that "hey, let's just do this to it!" has a success rate of nearly 0.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I'm with Roko on this one but I think Zack does have a kernel of a point. We *know* stories aren't just important to development - they're vital - they're how men learn what's expected in roles, which virtues are valued and how to express them in unexpected situations.
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @RokoMijicUK and
Progressives are right to want to manipulate stories - where they're wrong is the content of their beliefs. Their beliefs make people miserable and don't work to run a society - they can only consume social capital that was built up before they tore it down.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @RokoMijicUK and
I'm not strictly conservative about tinkering with stories but I am still opposed to letting *progressives* tinker with them.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.