But it would help the OP better formulate his question. He’s thinking he needs to internalize Bayes theorem, when in fact what is really important is that he needs to understand probability theory, of which Bayes theorem is one manifestation. Note that Bayesianism describes a philosophical movement, not scientific or mathematical. You don’t find statisticians discussing probability theory along such tribal lines. So asking tribalistic questions is perhaps not the best strategy to tease out understanding of the underlying model.
On LessWrong, Bayesianism is probability theory. Moreover, it is bundled in with subjectivism about probability, determinism, many worlds theory etc. It all comes down .to whether the OP wants to become a rationalist, or a LessWrong rationalist, like deciding whether you want to be an economist or an Austrian school economist. If the former, some unlearning will be required.
Given the limited amount of participation of EY on LW in the last years, I’m not even sure what EY believes today on a bunch of related questions.
There the CFAR research into practical rationality. Julia Galef wrote a post about how it changed her view of rationality.
I’m not aware of public statements of EY that specify the extend to which he updated on those questions. To the extend that you presume that EY didn’t update, that behavior has little to do with “LW rationality” in any meaningful definition of the term.
At the same time there are shared traits that distinguish people in the LW community.
After my first LW meetup I noticed that a fellow meetup attended had a skateboard with a handle to get around. We talk about it’s use and how he saves a lot of time because it’s faster than walking.
Then I asked him about the safety aspect.
He sincerely answered: “That’s a valid concern, I don’t know the numbers. I should research the numbers.”
Outside of LW nobody responds that way. If an anthropologist would go and study the people at our meetups, behavior like that would raise to his attention much more than agreeing with a stereotypical set of beliefs from the sequences.
The idea that the nature of an LW rationalists doesn’t get determined by behavior but by agreeing to some set of sequence claims, doesn’t really lead somewhere interesting.
I am not dissing the positive aspects of LW culture. After all, I am still here, aren’t I?
If I remember right you however don’t see yourself as part of LW culture because you are contrarian on key claims. The same is likely true for TheAncientGeek.
Being contrarian on things, however is quite essential LW behavior.
GP
I’m not quite sure what you mean with that. Do you mean TheAncientGeek?
But it would help the OP better formulate his question. He’s thinking he needs to internalize Bayes theorem, when in fact what is really important is that he needs to understand probability theory, of which Bayes theorem is one manifestation. Note that Bayesianism describes a philosophical movement, not scientific or mathematical. You don’t find statisticians discussing probability theory along such tribal lines. So asking tribalistic questions is perhaps not the best strategy to tease out understanding of the underlying model.
On LessWrong, Bayesianism is probability theory. Moreover, it is bundled in with subjectivism about probability, determinism, many worlds theory etc. It all comes down .to whether the OP wants to become a rationalist, or a LessWrong rationalist, like deciding whether you want to be an economist or an Austrian school economist. If the former, some unlearning will be required.
I don’t think there a fixed concept of what a “LessWrong rationalist” happens to be. LW is fairly diverse.
There is a fixed concepts of LW rationalISM. There are also dissidents in the community.
I think GP means “people who mostly agree with a fairly ad hoc set of things EY believes.”
Given the limited amount of participation of EY on LW in the last years, I’m not even sure what EY believes today on a bunch of related questions.
There the CFAR research into practical rationality. Julia Galef wrote a post about how it changed her view of rationality. I’m not aware of public statements of EY that specify the extend to which he updated on those questions. To the extend that you presume that EY didn’t update, that behavior has little to do with “LW rationality” in any meaningful definition of the term.
At the same time there are shared traits that distinguish people in the LW community. After my first LW meetup I noticed that a fellow meetup attended had a skateboard with a handle to get around. We talk about it’s use and how he saves a lot of time because it’s faster than walking. Then I asked him about the safety aspect.
He sincerely answered: “That’s a valid concern, I don’t know the numbers. I should research the numbers.”
Outside of LW nobody responds that way. If an anthropologist would go and study the people at our meetups, behavior like that would raise to his attention much more than agreeing with a stereotypical set of beliefs from the sequences.
The idea that the nature of an LW rationalists doesn’t get determined by behavior but by agreeing to some set of sequence claims, doesn’t really lead somewhere interesting.
I am not dissing the positive aspects of LW culture. After all, I am still here, aren’t I? I find much here quite valuable.
And anyways, this isn’t about what I think, I am giving my views of what GP means. Why are you perceiving this as an attack?
No.
If I remember right you however don’t see yourself as part of LW culture because you are contrarian on key claims. The same is likely true for TheAncientGeek. Being contrarian on things, however is quite essential LW behavior.
I’m not quite sure what you mean with that. Do you mean TheAncientGeek?