Adam Zerner
So does the choice of which type of fiber to take boil down to the question of the importance of constipation vs microbiome and cholesterol? It’s seeming to me like if the former is more important you should take soluble non-fermentable fiber, if the latter is more important you should take soluble fermentable fiber (or eat it in a whole food), and that insoluble fiber is never/rarely the best option.
Funny. I have a Dropbox folder where I store video tours of all the apartments I’ve ever lived in. Like, I spend a minute or two walking around the apartment and taking a video with my phone.
I’m not sure why, exactly. Partly because it’s fun to look back. Partly because I don’t want to “lose” something that’s been with me for so long.
I suspect that such video tours are more appropriate for a large majority of people. 10 hours and $200-$500 sounds like a lot. And you could always convert the video tour into digital art some time in the future if you find the nostalgia is really hitting you.
Hm. I hear ya. Good point. I’m not sure whether I agree or disagree.
I’m trying to think of an analogy and came up with the following. Imagine you go to McDonalds with some friends and someone comments that their burger would be better if they used prime ribeye for their ground beef.
I guess it’s technically true, but something also feels off about it to me that I’m having trouble putting my finger on. Maybe it’s that it feels like a moot point to discuss things that would make something better that are also impractical to implement.
I just looked up Gish gallops on Wikipedia. Here’s the first paragraph:
The Gish gallop (/ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/) is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by abandoning formal debating principles, providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments and that are impossible to address adequately in the time allotted to the opponent. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper’s arguments at the expense of their quality.
I disagree that focusing on the central point is a recipe for Gish gallops and that it leads to Schrodinger’s importance.
Well, I think that it in combination with a bunch of other poor epistemic norms it might be a recipe for those things, but a) not by itself and b) I think the norms would have to be pretty poor. Like, I don’t expect that you need 10⁄10 level epistemic norms in the presence of focusing on the central point to shield from those failure modes, I think you just need something more like 3⁄10 level epistemic norms. Here on LessWrong I think our epistemic norms are strong enough where focusing on the central point doesn’t put us at risk of things like Gish gallops and Schrodinger’s importance.
I actually disagree with this. I haven’t thought too hard about it and might just not be seeing it, but on first thought I am not really seeing how such evidence would make the post “much stronger”.
To elaborate, I like to use Paul Graham’s Disagreement Hierarchy as a lens to look through for the question of how strong a post is. In particular, I like to focus pretty hard on the central point (DH6) rather than supporting and tangential points. I think the central point plays a very large role in determining how strong a post is.
Here, my interpretation of the central point(s) is something like this:
Poverty is largely determined by the weakest link in the chain.
Anoxan is a helpful example to illustrate this.
It’s not too clear what drives poverty today, and so it’s not too clear that UBI would meaningfully reduce poverty.
I thought the post did a nice job of making those central points. Sure, something like a survey of the research in positive psychology could provide more support for point #1, for example, but I dunno, I found the sort of intuitive argument for point #1 to be pretty strong, I’m pretty persuaded by it, and so I don’t think I’d update too hard in response to the survey of positive psychology research.
Another thing I think about when asking myself how strong I think a post is is how “far along” it is. Is it an off the cuff conversation starter? An informal write up of something that’s been moderately refined? A formal write up of something that has been significantly refined?
I think this post was somewhere towards the beginning of the spectrum (note: it was originally a tweet, not a LessWrong post). So then, for things like citations supporting empirical claims, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect very much from the author, and so I lean away from viewing the lack of citations as something that (meaningfully) weakens the post.
What would it be like for people to not be poor?
I reply: You wouldn’t see people working 60-hour weeks, at jobs where they have to smile and bear it when their bosses abuse them.
I appreciate the concrete, illustrative examples used in this discussion, but I also want to recognize that they are only the beginnings of a “real” answer to the question of what it would be like to not be poor.
In other words, in an attempt to describe what he sees as poverty, I think Eliezer has taken the strategy of pointing to a few points in Thingspace and saying “here are some points; the stuff over here around these points is roughly what I’m trying to gesture at”. He hasn’t taken too much of a stab at drawing the boundaries. I’d like to take a small stab at drawing some boundaries.
It seems to me that poverty is about QALYs. Let’s wave our hands a bit and say that QALYs are a function of 1) the “cards you’re dealt” and 2) how you “play your hand”. With that, I think that we can think about poverty as happening when someone is dealt cards that make it “difficult” for them to have “enough” QALYs.
This happens in our world when you have to spend 40 hours a week smiling and bearing it. It happens in Anoxan when you take shallow breaths to conserve oxygen for your kids. And it happened to hunter-gatherers in times of scarcity.
There are many circumstances that can make it difficult to live a happy life. And as Eliezer calls out, it is quite possible for one “bad apple circumstance”, like an Anoxan resident not having enough oxygen, to spoil the bunch. For you to enjoy abundance in a lot of areas but scarcity in one/few other areas, and for the scarcity to be enough to drive poverty despite the abundance. I suppose then that poverty is driven in large part by the strength of the “weakest link”.
Note that I don’t think this dynamic needs to be very conscious on anyone’s part. I think that humans instinctively execute good game theory because evolution selected for it, even if the human executing just feels a wordless pull to that kind of behavior.
Yup, exactly. It makes me think back to The Moral Animal by Robert Wright. It’s been a while since I read it so take what follows with a grain of salt, because I could be butchering some stuff, but that book makes the argument that this sort of thing goes beyond friendship and into all types of emotions and moral feelings.
Like if you’re at the grocery store and someone just cuts you in line for no reason, one way of looking at it is that the cost to you is negligible—you just need to wait an additional 45 seconds for them to check out—and so the rational thing would be to just let it happen. You could confront them, but what exactly would you have to gain? Suppose you are traveling and will never see any of the people in the area ever again.
But we have evolved such that this situation would evoke some strong emotions regarding unfairness, and these emotions would often drive you to confront the person who cut you in line. I forget if this stuff is more at the individual level or the cultural level.
Why? Because extra information could help me impress them.
I’ve always been pretty against the idea of trying to impress people on dates.
It risks false positives. Ie. it risks a situation where you succeed at impressing them, go on more dates or have a longer relationship than you otherwise would, and then realize that you aren’t compatible and break up. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing but I think it is more often than not.
Impressing your date also reduces the risk of false negatives, which is a good thing. Ie. it helps avoid the scenario where someone who you’re compatible with rejects you. Maybe this is too starry-eyed, but I like to think that if you just bring your true self to the table, are open-minded, and push yourself to be a little vulnerable, the risk of such false negatives is pretty low.
I think this is especially relevant because I think the emotionally healthy person heuristic probably says to try to impress your date.
Hm yeah, I feel the same way. Good point.
America’s response to covid seems like one example of this.
If I’m remembering correctly from Zvi’s blog posts, he criticized the US’s policy for being a sort of worst of both worlds middle ground. A strong, decisive requirement to enforce things like masking and distancing might have actually eradicated the virus and thus been worthwhile. But if you’re not going to take an aggressive enough stance, you should just forget it: half-hearted mitigation policies don’t do enough to “complete the bridge” and so aren’t worth the economic and social costs.
It’s not a perfect example. The “unfinished bridge” here provides positive value, not zero value. But I think the amount of positive value is low enough that it would be useful to round it down to zero. The important thing is that you get a big jump in value once you cross some threshold of progress.
I think a lot of philanthropic causes are probably in a similar boat.
When there are lots of small groups spread around making very marginal progress on a bunch of different goals, it’s as if they’re building a bunch of unfinished bridges. This too isn’t a perfect example because the “unfinished bridges” provide some value, but like the covid example, I think the amount of value is small enough that we can just round it to zero.
On the other hand, when people get a little barbaric and rally around a single cause, there might be enough concentration of force to complete the bridge.
Beware unfinished bridges
Project idea: virtual water coolers for LessWrong
Previous: Virtual water coolers
Here’s an idea: what if there was a virtual water cooler for LessWrong?
There’d be Zoom chats with three people per chat. Each chat is a virtual water cooler.
The user journey would begin by the user expressing that they’d like to join a virtual water cooler.
Once they do, they’d be invited to join one.
I think it’d make sense to restrict access to users based on karma. Maybe only 100+ karma users are allowed.
To start, that could be it. In the future you could do some investigation into things like how many people there should be per chat.
Seems like an experiment that is both cheap and worthwhile.
If there is interest I’d be happy to create a MVP.
(Related: it could be interesting to abstract this and build a sort of “virtual water cooler platform builder” such that eg. LessWrong could use the builder to build a virtual water cooler platform for LessWrong and OtherCommunity could use the builder to build a virtual water cooler platform for their community.)
Update: I tried a few doses of Adderall, up to 15mg. I didn’t notice anything.
I was envisioning that you can organize a festival incrementally, investing more time and money into it as you receive more and more validation, and that taking this approach would de-risk it to the point where overall, it’s “not that risky”.
For example, to start off you can email or message a handful of potential attendees. If they aren’t excited by the idea you can stop there, but if they are then you can proceed to start looking into things like cost and logistics. I’m not sure how pragmatic this iterative approach actually is though. What do you think?
Also, it seems to me that you wouldn’t have to actually risk losing any of your own money. I’d imagine that you’d 1) talk to the hostel, agree on a price, have them “hold the spot” for you, 2) get sign ups, 3) pay using the money you get from attendees.
Although now that I think about it I’m realizing that it probably isn’t that simple. For example, the hostel cost ~$5k and maybe the money from the attendees would have covered it all but maybe less attendees signed up than you were expecting and the organizers ended up having to pay out of pocket.
On the other hand, maybe there is funding available for situations like these.
Virtual watercoolers
As I mentioned in some recent Shortform posts, I recently listened to the Bayesian Conspiracy podcast’s episode on the LessOnline festival and it got me thinking.
One thing I think is cool is that Ben Pace was saying how the valuable thing about these festivals isn’t the presentations, it’s the time spent mingling in between the presentations, and so they decided with LessOnline to just ditch the presentations and make it all about mingling. Which got me thinking about mingling.
It seems plausible to me that such mingling can and should happen more online. And I wonder whether an important thing about mingling in the physical world is that, how do I say this, you’re just in the same physical space, next to each other, with nothing else you’re supposed to be doing, and in fact what you’re supposed to be doing is talking to one another.
Well, I guess you’re not supposed to be talking to one another. It’s also cool if you just want to hang out and sip on a drink or something. It’s similar to the office water cooler: it’s cool if you’re just hanging out drinking some water, but it’s also normal to chit chat with your coworkers.
I wonder whether it’d be good to design a virtual watercooler. A digital place that mimicks aspects of the situations I’ve been describing (festivals, office watercoolers).
By being available in the virtual watercooler it’s implied that you’re pretty available to chit chat with, but it’s also cool if you’re just hanging out doing something low key like sipping a drink.
You shouldn’t be doing something more substantial though.
The virtual watercooler should be organized around a certain theme. It should attract a certain group of people and filter out people who don’t fit in. Just like festivals and office water coolers.
In particular, this feels to me like something that might be worth exploring for LessWrong.
Note: I know that there are various Slack and Discord groups but they don’t meet conditions (1) or (2).
More dakka with festivals
In the rationality community people are currently excited about the LessOnline festival. Furthermore, my impression is that similar festivals are generally quite successful: people enjoy them, have stimulating discussions, form new relationships, are exposed to new and interesting ideas, express that they got a lot out of it, etc.
So then, this feels to me like a situation where More Dakka applies. Organize more festivals!
How? Who? I dunno, but these seem like questions worth discussing.
Some initial thoughts:
Assurance contracts seem like quite the promising tool.
You probably don’t need a hero license to go out and organize a festival.
Trying to organize a festival probably isn’t risky. It doesn’t seem like it’d involve too much time or money.
I wish there were more discussion posts on LessWrong.
Right now it feels like it weakly if not moderately violates some sort of cultural norm to publish a discussion post (similar but to a lesser extent on the Shortform). Something low effort of the form “X is a topic I’d like to discuss. A, B and C are a few initial thoughts I have about it. What do you guys think?”
It seems to me like something we should encourage though. Here’s how I’m thinking about it. Such “discussion posts” currently happen informally in social circles. Maybe you’ll text a friend. Maybe you’ll bring it up at a meetup. Maybe you’ll post about it in a private Slack group.
But if it’s appropriate in those contexts, why shouldn’t it be appropriate on LessWrong? Why not benefit from having it be visible to more people? The more eyes you get on it, the better the chance someone has something helpful, insightful, or just generally useful to contribute.
The big downside I see is that it would screw up the post feed. Like when you go to lesswrong.com and see the list of posts, you don’t want that list to have a bunch of low quality discussion posts you’re not interested in. You don’t want to spend time and energy sifting through the noise to find the signal.
But this is easily solved with filters. Authors could mark/categorize/tag their posts as being a low-effort discussion post, and people who don’t want to see such posts in their feed can apply a filter to filter these discussion posts out.
Context: I was listening to the Bayesian Conspiracy podcast’s episode on LessOnline. Hearing them talk about the sorts of discussions they envision happening there made me think about why that sort of thing doesn’t happen more on LessWrong. Like, whatever you’d say to the group of people you’re hanging out with at LessOnline, why not publish a quick discussion post about it on LessWrong?
Hm, maybe.
Sometimes it can be a win-win situation. For example, if the call leads to you identifying a problem they’re having and solving it in a mutually beneficial way.
But often times that isn’t the case. From their perspective, the chances are low enough where, yeah, maybe the cold call just feels spammy and annoying.
I think that cold calls can be worthwhile from behind a veil of ignorance though. That’s the barometer I like to use. If I were behind a veil of ignorance, would I endorse the cold call? Some cold calls are well targeted and genuine, in which case I would endorse them from behind a veil of ignorance. Others are spammy and thoughtless, in which case I wouldn’t endorse them.
I agree with everything you’ve said. Let me try to clarify where it is that I think we might be disagreeing.
I am of the opinion that some “narrow problems” are “good candidates” to build “narrow solutions” for but that other “narrow problems” are not good candidates to build “narrow solutions” for and instead really call for being solved as part of an all-in-one solution.
I think you would agree with this. I don’t think you would make the argument that all “narrow problems” are “good candidates” to build “narrow solutions” for.
Furthermore, as I argue in the post, I think that the level of “cohesion” often plays an important role in how “appropriate” it is to use a “narrow solution” for a “narrow problem”. I think you would agree with this as well.
I suspect that our only real disagreement here is how we would weigh the tradeoffs. I think I lean moderately more in the direction of thinking that cohesiveness is important enough to make various “narrow problems” insufficiently good candidates for a “narrow solution” and you lean moderately more in the direction of thinking that cohesiveness isn’t too big a deal and the “narrow problem” still is a good candidate for building a “narrow solution” for.
To be clear, I don’t think that any of this means that I should attempt to build all-in-one products. I think it means that in my calculus for what “narrow problem” I should attempt to tackle I should factor in the level of cohesion.
Oh I see, that makes sense. In retrospect that is a little obvious that you don’t have to choose one or the other :)