4 ms·

> it is the way nature made us What utter bullshit. I've been in plenty of bars, while drunk, and never felt the need to sexually harass anyone. You're just e

> it is the way nature made us What utter bullshit. I've been in plenty of bars, while drunk, and never felt the need to sexually harass anyone. You're just excusing sexist, asshole behaviour.

gavanwoolery 14y ago
Not excusing it, explaining it. Do you see the difference? If I tell you that serial killers kill people because it is the nature of sociopaths, I am NOT EXCUSING it, I am EXPLAINING it.
- anthonyb 14y ago
  Thanks for the patronising tone, but I follow your logic (such as it is). You're just wrong.
Jach 14y ago
http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/
- anthonyb 14y ago
  Oh, a lesswrong pedant. No, it's disproving his statement. You only need one counter example for that.
  - Jach 14y ago
    More like an Overcoming Bias hipster, the post I linked however is one of the excellent-content posts from post-migration. (Even the comments are interesting, I especially liked those by lindagert trying to describe what it's like not having the ability to mentally visualize anything.) But fair enough point about your reply being a counter-example, I stand corrected. I interpreted your reply as more akin to "your observation about general human behavior has absolutely no merit because not every human follows the same pattern, just look at me", rather than a formal logical counter-argument to an informal assertion made outside of a proof that not only personifies nature without the usual caveats but also to which a more charitable interpretation of being a comment in a discussion (not an attempt at a proof) would not apply the universal quantifier reserved for formal arguments. I guess I should have interpreted your reply more charitably as well, but in the other direction with respect to being an attempt at a proof.
    - anthonyb 14y ago
      > I interpreted your reply as more akin to.. That was my reply exactly, except I would've used fewer big words ;) I guess conversation and arguments like this still follow the same rules as formal logic - they're just applied in a fuzzier way. I generally tend to avoid the less wrong set. While there is some good stuff on there, the bulk of it to me seems to be overwhelmingly arrogant and self-absorbed, which doesn't seem to strike me as likely to pick up any new biases, just regurgitate old ones.

> it is the way nature made us What utter bullshit. I've been in plenty of bars, while drunk, and never felt the need to sexually harass anyone. You're just excusing sexist, asshole behaviour.

gavanwoolery 14y ago

Not excusing it, explaining it. Do you see the difference? If I tell you that serial killers kill people because it is the nature of sociopaths, I am NOT EXCUSING it, I am EXPLAINING it.

anthonyb 14y ago
Thanks for the patronising tone, but I follow your logic (such as it is). You're just wrong.

Jach 14y ago

http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/

anthonyb 14y ago
Oh, a lesswrong pedant. No, it's disproving his statement. You only need one counter example for that.
- Jach 14y ago
  More like an Overcoming Bias hipster, the post I linked however is one of the excellent-content posts from post-migration. (Even the comments are interesting, I especially liked those by lindagert trying to describe what it's like not having the ability to mentally visualize anything.) But fair enough point about your reply being a counter-example, I stand corrected. I interpreted your reply as more akin to "your observation about general human behavior has absolutely no merit because not every human follows the same pattern, just look at me", rather than a formal logical counter-argument to an informal assertion made outside of a proof that not only personifies nature without the usual caveats but also to which a more charitable interpretation of being a comment in a discussion (not an attempt at a proof) would not apply the universal quantifier reserved for formal arguments. I guess I should have interpreted your reply more charitably as well, but in the other direction with respect to being an attempt at a proof.
  - anthonyb 14y ago
    > I interpreted your reply as more akin to.. That was my reply exactly, except I would've used fewer big words ;) I guess conversation and arguments like this still follow the same rules as formal logic - they're just applied in a fuzzier way. I generally tend to avoid the less wrong set. While there is some good stuff on there, the bulk of it to me seems to be overwhelmingly arrogant and self-absorbed, which doesn't seem to strike me as likely to pick up any new biases, just regurgitate old ones.