4 ms·

There is such a thing as personal variance, you know. The fundamental attribution error kicks in when you're trying to judge by single events. If you observe

There is such a thing as personal variance, you know. The fundamental attribution error kicks in when you're trying to judge by single events. If you observe someone for a year, it's a lot more reasonable to expect them to be much the same next year. I would agree with the statement "people are oddly consistent", it's just that it's not so easy to judge from single events, and when we do judge we're likely to miss consistent background causes or consistent reactions, and think in terms of consistent personal attributes. I'm always pleasantly surprised when I meet someone who actually improves over time in any visible way. I don't go around expecting it.

jodrellblank 18y ago
In pictures ( e.g. http://tinyurl.com/6dnntv http://tinyurl.com/6dnntv ) you seem far too rotundily enhanced to be one who practises caloric restriction, yet this seems a much more likely way to extend both your life and useful life than cryonics, which you heartily recommend. How come? (A quick search on this finds no writing of yours addressing this matter). (Not at all on topic, I know).
mhartl 18y ago
You always say stuff like this, Eliezer. :-) I would agree with the statement "people are oddly consistent" I agree, too, for sufficient values of "consistent". It's just that when this statement is followed by "Cheaters cheat whenever it suits them" it smacks of the FAE.