6 ms·
The overall idea seems quite fun, but I'd be cautious about the lecture where he doesn't actually lie. Although the author seems to have taken it quite well, it
by dwohnitmok 5y ago
The overall idea seems quite fun, but I'd be cautious about the lecture where he doesn't actually lie. Although the author seems to have taken it quite well, it could easily have come off as a cheap trick to other students and reduced motivation to find future lies. One of those kinds of lectures might work, but much more might not.
Although on the other hand I do remember hearing something along the lines of inconsistent rewards having a stronger incentive effect than consistent rewards, so maybe not?
- smitty1e 5y agoI recall seeing this anecdote on Slashdot a decade or better ago. Possibly the same author, or, given the 'zen' in the site name, it is a koan?
- basq 5y agoZen is extremely misunderstood in the west. Mostly because what we understand of it comes from a conman and his followers who appropriated it a la scientology/mormonism. Therefore, the default assumption when seeing 'zen' mentioned is that it's the bogus religion version.
- Agentlien 5y agoThat's interesting, what was his name and where can I read more about it?
- denton-scratch 5y agoIf most of what we know of Zen in the West was disseminated by him and his followers, that points to DT Suzuki. I'm not aware that he was a con-man, although he appears to have had some pretty distasteful opinions.
- its_bbq 5y agoThis may be a leak of the pet theory of /r/zen that Dogen, the founder of Soto Zen, was a fraud and that Zen is somehow not Buddhism. I haven't seen this theory taken seriously anywhere else.
- basq 5y agoCalling it a 'pet theory' is extremely disingenuous. Of course every scientologist will 'not take seriously' claims that their founder was a conman, because to do so is to admit their beliefs are based on falsehoods. It's a self reinforcing system.
- aspenmayer 5y agoIsn’t it a lie to to invite folks to a lecture where it’s understood that you will lie, only to tell the truth instead?
- ptx 5y agoI'd consider it a type error: he's declaring Lie<T> but providing Lie<Lie<T>>.
- aspenmayer 5y agoCan you draw the truth table of this lie about lying? Is it a Type 3 error, specifically? I’m not great at coding, but I’m learning with your help! I’m only half-joking. I have only rudimentary formal logic education, or else I would myself. :P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table
- ptx 5y agoWhat I was trying to get at is that it was agreed that he would lie in a certain context, but he instead lied in a different context that wasn't part of the agreement. If you buy tickets for a magic show, it's agreed that you will be tricked. But if the trick is that there is no show and they're simply scamming you out of your money, that wouldn't generally be considered acceptable. The show itself and buying tickets for the show are different contexts. Similarly, a box of cookies is not same thing as a box of boxes of cookies. The contents of the outer box in the latter case wouldn't be very tasty.
- aspenmayer 5y ago> If you buy tickets for a magic show, it's agreed that you will be tricked. But if the trick is that there is no show and they're simply scamming you out of your money, that wouldn't generally be considered acceptable. This is a great explanation. I was immediately reminded of Joker’s “magic trick” with a pencil during his interrogation in The Dark Knight. https://youtube.com/watch?v=L3oOldViIgY https://youtube.com/watch?v=L3oOldViIgY