<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fantasy and Reality: Substitutes or Complements?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/fantasy-and-rea.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/fantasy-and-rea.html</link>
	<description>Overcoming Bias is economist Robin Hanson’s blog, on honesty, signaling, disagreement, forecasting, and the far future.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:24:23 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: The Last Real New Yorker</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/fantasy-and-rea.html#comment-406536</link>
		<dc:creator>The Last Real New Yorker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:03:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/03/fantasy-and-reality-substitutes-or-complements.html#comment-406536</guid>
		<description>Nice homepage promoting eugenics, Tim Tyler.

Can we please get this clown&#039;s comments banned?
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice homepage promoting eugenics, Tim Tyler.</p>
<p>Can we please get this clown&#8217;s comments banned?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug S.</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/fantasy-and-rea.html#comment-406535</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug S.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:20:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/03/fantasy-and-reality-substitutes-or-complements.html#comment-406535</guid>
		<description>I use fantasy as a substitute for recreational drug use.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I use fantasy as a substitute for recreational drug use.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Jaress</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/fantasy-and-rea.html#comment-406534</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Jaress</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:33:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/03/fantasy-and-reality-substitutes-or-complements.html#comment-406534</guid>
		<description>I think the fact that they&#039;re basically separate means that any effect is indirect and depends partly on the person.

Dogs and Stocks: Substitutes or Complements?

Does exposure to stocks tend to increase or decrease our ability to see dogs as they are?
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the fact that they&#8217;re basically separate means that any effect is indirect and depends partly on the person.</p>
<p>Dogs and Stocks: Substitutes or Complements?</p>
<p>Does exposure to stocks tend to increase or decrease our ability to see dogs as they are?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil Goetz</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/fantasy-and-rea.html#comment-406533</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil Goetz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 03:56:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/03/fantasy-and-reality-substitutes-or-complements.html#comment-406533</guid>
		<description>This is exactly the criterion that I use to judge literature.  Good literature teaches you more about how the world works.  Bad literature generally reinforces popular views to the point of dysfunction.

This is a data-driven theory; I arrived at it after years of puzzling over the fact that there were some books that I really enjoyed, like Tom Clancy or Robert Jordan novels, that I still thought were not very good books; and books that I didn&#039;t &quot;enjoy&quot; very much, like Dostoyevsky novels, that I thought were excellent.  Although I loved reading Robert Jordan novels, I forgot them almost immediately afterwards.  By contrast, I would often find myself drawing analogies between something in a good novel and something in my life.  So I decided to judge a novel by how often I was reminded of it by real life.

For example, in love, there are certain counterproductive habits and attitudes common to women, and others common to men.  A woman who learns about love from romance novels, or a man who learns about love from porn, will be worse off than before, because these genres give  women and men pleasure by pandering to these bad habits.  Romeo and Juliet is quite different, but also dysfunctional:  it portrays love as only for the very young; instantaneous rather than being grounded in any qualities of the beloved; perfect and needing to overcome only external obstacles rather than any friction between the lovers themselves; and inevitably destructive.  These and other popular works, like politicians, make people feel good about themselves by justifying the beliefs they are most defensive about - which are, not coincidentally, the beliefs most likely to be unjustified.  Real life events rarely remind one of these dysfunctional narratives.

Catch-22, by contrast, was a good book for me.  At a time in my life when parents, church, and school were all teaching me to respect authority, tradition, and the Proper Way of Doing Things, Catch-22 gave me a glimpse of the man behind the curtain.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is exactly the criterion that I use to judge literature.  Good literature teaches you more about how the world works.  Bad literature generally reinforces popular views to the point of dysfunction.</p>
<p>This is a data-driven theory; I arrived at it after years of puzzling over the fact that there were some books that I really enjoyed, like Tom Clancy or Robert Jordan novels, that I still thought were not very good books; and books that I didn&#8217;t &#8220;enjoy&#8221; very much, like Dostoyevsky novels, that I thought were excellent.  Although I loved reading Robert Jordan novels, I forgot them almost immediately afterwards.  By contrast, I would often find myself drawing analogies between something in a good novel and something in my life.  So I decided to judge a novel by how often I was reminded of it by real life.</p>
<p>For example, in love, there are certain counterproductive habits and attitudes common to women, and others common to men.  A woman who learns about love from romance novels, or a man who learns about love from porn, will be worse off than before, because these genres give  women and men pleasure by pandering to these bad habits.  Romeo and Juliet is quite different, but also dysfunctional:  it portrays love as only for the very young; instantaneous rather than being grounded in any qualities of the beloved; perfect and needing to overcome only external obstacles rather than any friction between the lovers themselves; and inevitably destructive.  These and other popular works, like politicians, make people feel good about themselves by justifying the beliefs they are most defensive about &#8211; which are, not coincidentally, the beliefs most likely to be unjustified.  Real life events rarely remind one of these dysfunctional narratives.</p>
<p>Catch-22, by contrast, was a good book for me.  At a time in my life when parents, church, and school were all teaching me to respect authority, tradition, and the Proper Way of Doing Things, Catch-22 gave me a glimpse of the man behind the curtain.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: biltwick</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/fantasy-and-rea.html#comment-406532</link>
		<dc:creator>biltwick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:14:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/03/fantasy-and-reality-substitutes-or-complements.html#comment-406532</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d agree with Eliezer on the idea that happiness depends on being able to appreciate the world that you live in, regardless of its laws. In a world where you can quickly manipulate underlying structure for quick satisfaction, the desire to understand more or improve (for humans at least) is quickly ignored because you can quickly achieve what you want.

In Terry Pratchett&#039;s &#039;The Last Hero&#039;, the equivalent of Leonardo da Vinci is considered strange by wizards, as they deliberately begin by deciding what they want and then phrasing the spell, whereas he takes time to understand the structure of the universe first, and in doing so creates more complex and longer-lived effects than those wizards, who care only about the results and not the means (much like politicians I think!).

And the danger of having the ability to change physical reality en masse is dangerous in large numbers. As for the &#039;caring universe&#039;, the fact that reality has multiple organizers, each believing themselves worthwhile, the idea of favoring just one is grossly unfair, in those settings which have deities, many are often species-specific (racism and ethnocentrism on a cosmological level). Magic in these settings is usually a convenient shortcut, and if the ability is inherent (genetic or &#039;chosen ones&#039;) then prejudice results (ex. Muggles in Harry Potter).

Even with elemental-level abilities that depend on consciousness, consciousness itself is the greatest ability of all, to understand and influence reality by proxy or directly. The key to your future is whether you can continuously improve as individuals or as groups without destroying the fabric of reality.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d agree with Eliezer on the idea that happiness depends on being able to appreciate the world that you live in, regardless of its laws. In a world where you can quickly manipulate underlying structure for quick satisfaction, the desire to understand more or improve (for humans at least) is quickly ignored because you can quickly achieve what you want.</p>
<p>In Terry Pratchett&#8217;s &#8216;The Last Hero&#8217;, the equivalent of Leonardo da Vinci is considered strange by wizards, as they deliberately begin by deciding what they want and then phrasing the spell, whereas he takes time to understand the structure of the universe first, and in doing so creates more complex and longer-lived effects than those wizards, who care only about the results and not the means (much like politicians I think!).</p>
<p>And the danger of having the ability to change physical reality en masse is dangerous in large numbers. As for the &#8216;caring universe&#8217;, the fact that reality has multiple organizers, each believing themselves worthwhile, the idea of favoring just one is grossly unfair, in those settings which have deities, many are often species-specific (racism and ethnocentrism on a cosmological level). Magic in these settings is usually a convenient shortcut, and if the ability is inherent (genetic or &#8216;chosen ones&#8217;) then prejudice results (ex. Muggles in Harry Potter).</p>
<p>Even with elemental-level abilities that depend on consciousness, consciousness itself is the greatest ability of all, to understand and influence reality by proxy or directly. The key to your future is whether you can continuously improve as individuals or as groups without destroying the fabric of reality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Kenny</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/fantasy-and-rea.html#comment-406531</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Kenny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:27:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/03/fantasy-and-reality-substitutes-or-complements.html#comment-406531</guid>
		<description>Robin writes: &quot;Folks, thinking about reality - making theories about it and trying out various scenarios in your mind - doesn&#039;t count as fiction, it counts as reality.&quot;

Also in the post:

&quot;Fiction can suppress irrelevant detail and emphasize important essences, like a math model.&quot;

There seem to be other items on the list that suggest fiction could be seen as a theory about reality.  So why is the math model counting as reality and the fiction not?
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Robin writes: &#8220;Folks, thinking about reality &#8211; making theories about it and trying out various scenarios in your mind &#8211; doesn&#8217;t count as fiction, it counts as reality.&#8221;</p>
<p>Also in the post:</p>
<p>&#8220;Fiction can suppress irrelevant detail and emphasize important essences, like a math model.&#8221;</p>
<p>There seem to be other items on the list that suggest fiction could be seen as a theory about reality.  So why is the math model counting as reality and the fiction not?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Emery</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/fantasy-and-rea.html#comment-406530</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Emery</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:21:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/03/fantasy-and-reality-substitutes-or-complements.html#comment-406530</guid>
		<description>The reason fiction cannot compliment reality is fictional characters don&#039;t act like real people do.  That&#039;s why we like them.  They are more heroic, more evil, more sinister, and more daring then we are.  Your responses to stimuli are partially shaped by the experiences you&#039;ve had, and if most of those experiences have been fictional, you won&#039;t react like someone whose experiences are reality based.  I&#039;m not arguing that there should be no fiction, only that the more fiction you read and watch, the more your view of reality is warped.  Eventually, your expectations of reality become based on fictional experiences.  Think of stereotypes and prejugdeces as perfect examples.  The more you are exposed to these fictional representations, the more you believe them to be true, and act accordingly.  I would argue that the closer to reality fiction is, the more it impacts your view, and it can be dangerous, if used purposely to change how you view the world.


</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The reason fiction cannot compliment reality is fictional characters don&#8217;t act like real people do.  That&#8217;s why we like them.  They are more heroic, more evil, more sinister, and more daring then we are.  Your responses to stimuli are partially shaped by the experiences you&#8217;ve had, and if most of those experiences have been fictional, you won&#8217;t react like someone whose experiences are reality based.  I&#8217;m not arguing that there should be no fiction, only that the more fiction you read and watch, the more your view of reality is warped.  Eventually, your expectations of reality become based on fictional experiences.  Think of stereotypes and prejugdeces as perfect examples.  The more you are exposed to these fictional representations, the more you believe them to be true, and act accordingly.  I would argue that the closer to reality fiction is, the more it impacts your view, and it can be dangerous, if used purposely to change how you view the world.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robin Hanson</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/fantasy-and-rea.html#comment-406529</link>
		<dc:creator>Robin Hanson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:18:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/03/fantasy-and-reality-substitutes-or-complements.html#comment-406529</guid>
		<description>Folks, thinking about reality - making theories about it and trying out various scenarios in your mind - doesn&#039;t count as fiction, it counts as reality.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Folks, thinking about reality &#8211; making theories about it and trying out various scenarios in your mind &#8211; doesn&#8217;t count as fiction, it counts as reality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/fantasy-and-rea.html#comment-406528</link>
		<dc:creator>James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:29:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/03/fantasy-and-reality-substitutes-or-complements.html#comment-406528</guid>
		<description>For more on fiction as a complement to reality, read Baudrillard&#039;s Simulacra and Simulation. One argument he makes is that fictional places located in reality like Disney World etc. perform a function in society where one can go to satisfy his experience  of &quot;fiction,&quot; then return to the &quot;reality&quot; of everyday life. While books, movies and other formats are relatively easy to classify as fiction, fiction and reality experienced directly in life are not as clearly distinguishable as we are conditioned to believe. Social rules can be considered a default designation of roles out of many possible--in this light societal constructs can share qualities of fiction. But because they are internalized, they less than regularly occupy our attention.
&quot;All the world&#039;s a stage.&quot;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For more on fiction as a complement to reality, read Baudrillard&#8217;s Simulacra and Simulation. One argument he makes is that fictional places located in reality like Disney World etc. perform a function in society where one can go to satisfy his experience  of &#8220;fiction,&#8221; then return to the &#8220;reality&#8221; of everyday life. While books, movies and other formats are relatively easy to classify as fiction, fiction and reality experienced directly in life are not as clearly distinguishable as we are conditioned to believe. Social rules can be considered a default designation of roles out of many possible&#8211;in this light societal constructs can share qualities of fiction. But because they are internalized, they less than regularly occupy our attention.<br />
&#8220;All the world&#8217;s a stage.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thanatos Savehn</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/fantasy-and-rea.html#comment-406527</link>
		<dc:creator>Thanatos Savehn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:56:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/03/fantasy-and-reality-substitutes-or-complements.html#comment-406527</guid>
		<description>I vote for &quot;complements&quot; as I think fiction helps us to uncover reality in at least three important ways.

In one sense fiction helps us understand causality by letting us examine counterfactuals. Murder mysteries come to mind.

In another, fiction helps us to glimpse the shape of the curve as it were. We identify variables, plug in different values and plot the results in hopes of finding some otherwise hidden pattern. Think Star Trek.

Finally, fiction helps us comprehend our selves, our nature; what motivates us and what drives us - whether primordial or ... otherwise; and here I refer mainly to fantasy, in all its forms. The Lord of the Rings being an excellent example.






</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I vote for &#8220;complements&#8221; as I think fiction helps us to uncover reality in at least three important ways.</p>
<p>In one sense fiction helps us understand causality by letting us examine counterfactuals. Murder mysteries come to mind.</p>
<p>In another, fiction helps us to glimpse the shape of the curve as it were. We identify variables, plug in different values and plot the results in hopes of finding some otherwise hidden pattern. Think Star Trek.</p>
<p>Finally, fiction helps us comprehend our selves, our nature; what motivates us and what drives us &#8211; whether primordial or &#8230; otherwise; and here I refer mainly to fantasy, in all its forms. The Lord of the Rings being an excellent example.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
