There are probably around 20 major characteristics I wish each LW user had (such as “be able to think in probabilites” and “be able to generate hypotheses for confusing phenomena”), and most of them can be improved with “regular learning and practice”, and nudges, rather than overcoming weird adversarial anti-inductive dynamics.
Why would this matter at all for any purpose that might related to the use of rivalrous goods in an environment where there’s no solution to adversarial epistemics? What’s your model for how that could work?
I’m not sure what you mean. I agree solving adversarial epistemics is quite important and among the top priorities for the rationality project. But why would that be necessary to get any value out of empiricism/scholarship/etc?
Capitalism is built out of adversarial epistemics, which often results in waste, but still has generated tremendous value, as has science and academia. I wouldn’t consider the typical company or research department a “weird social club” just because they hadn’t solved that yet –
Does that comparison seem wrong? Do you in fact consider most businesses weird social clubs? I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here.
Why would this matter at all for any purpose that might related to the use of rivalrous goods in an environment where there’s no solution to adversarial epistemics? What’s your model for how that could work?
I’m not sure what you mean. I agree solving adversarial epistemics is quite important and among the top priorities for the rationality project. But why would that be necessary to get any value out of empiricism/scholarship/etc?
Capitalism is built out of adversarial epistemics, which often results in waste, but still has generated tremendous value, as has science and academia. I wouldn’t consider the typical company or research department a “weird social club” just because they hadn’t solved that yet –
Does that comparison seem wrong? Do you in fact consider most businesses weird social clubs? I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here.