STRUCTURE: Reality and rational best practice
This post is part of my Hazardous Guide To Rationality. I don’t expect this to be new or exciting to frequent LW people, and I would super appreciate comments and feedback in light of intents for the sequence, as outlined in the above link. Also, note this is a STRUCTURE post, again see the above link for what that means.
The shifting sands of belief
Updating as the winds of evidence shift, not in begrudging jumps and jerks
Why you don’t need “certainty”
… and why it feels like you totally do need it.
Pole Vaulting over the Uncanny Valley of Bad Rationality
Crash course in VNM rational agents (and why you aren’t one)
More from a “how not to personally fall into an existential funk” perspective.
This seems like an outline sketch of something you might write in the future, and so do the previous things in the sequence. Is the intention (1) to edit these posts later to flesh them out, (2) to leave these here as sketches and then write separate more detailed things later, or (3) just to write bullet-point-list sketches and leave them as such?
1st plan was that this and the prev posts where “outlines of the main ideas I want to cover in however many posts, to be written later”. When there was enough detail of, “Here’s a discrete post/worthy idea I’ve decided I want to cover” I would then create new post which would be the flushed out outline of the idea. This would then be edited and revised to be a normal human readable content post.
You made me notice that I didn’t have a clear sense of how I wanted comments to work. If there’s discussion of the ideas/content outlined in this post, would I want to / have to port that to the actual post I eventually make?
Current plan is to clearly differentiate “structure” and “content” posts. This is a structure post, and I’d like comments to be about, “What do you think of this chunk of idea space being an intro to rationality?”. Content posts will be, “What do you think of this idea/content/how I wrote about it?”