-
alicey
i’ve recently started reading this book, but the search-inference framework seems obviously silly, neglecting simple concepts such as “system 1 does thinking”
what is up with this?
hello! i am transgender, and i would like to friendly mention that the word is “transgender” is usually preferred
but words are hard, so if this doesn’t come across as friendly, i have done words poorly :c
Does it clash with your experience of decision-making?
so, it seems a decent model for system-2 decision making
however, most of our minds is system-1 and is nowhere near so spocky
It’s not clear to me what you mean by “System 1 does thinking.” Could you unpack that for me?
most of our minds and our cognitive power is instantiated as subconscious system 1 mechanics, not anything as apparent as search-inference
or, it says things like “Naive theories are systems of beliefs that result from incomplete thinking.” and i think “uh sure but if you treat it as a binary then you’ll have to classify all theories as naive . i don’t think you have any idea what complete thinking would actually look like” and then it goes on to talk about the binary between naive and non-naive theories and gives commonplace examples of both
it’s like the book is describing meta concepts (models for human minds) purely by example (different specific wrong models about human minds) without even acknowledging that they’re meta-level
i am experiencing this as disgusting and i notice that i am confused
visible likely resolutions to this confusion are “i am badly misunderstanding the book” and “people on lesswrong are stupider than i thought”
note: shminux is a particularly vocal individual who strongly disagrees with the timeless “block universe” model
in http://intelligenceexplosion.com/2012/engineering-utopia/ you say “There was once a time when the average human couldn’t expect to live much past age thirty.”
this is false, right?
(edit note: life expectancy matches “what the average human can expect to live to” now somewhat, but if you have a double hump of death at infancy/childhood and then old age, you can have a life expectancy of 30 but a life expectancy of 15 year olds of 60, in which case the average human can expect to live to 1 or 60 (this is very different from “can’t expect to live to >30″) . or just “can expect to live to 60” if you too don’t count infants as really human)
have edited original comment . does it address this?
have edited original comment to address this.
(thought it was obvious)
-
i can find many sources claiming the opposite (for example, http://books.google.com/books?id=EFI7tr9XK6EC&pg=PA62&dq=life+expectancy+ancient+rome+infant+mortality&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zniRUKH5Ae--2AW6sIDICQ&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=life%20expectancy%20ancient%20rome%20infant%20mortality&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=zlsaLgBdLF8C&pg=PA44&dq=ancient+world+life+expectancy+compared&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JhyEUaKhEqmiiQKZ0YCoBQ&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ancient%20world%20life%20expectancy%20compared&f=false ) and few agreeing with you
cite?
she who wears the magic bracelet of future-self delegation http://i.imgur.com/5Bfq4we.png prefers to do as she is ordered
why yes
clusters can overlap, and the word “more like” uses different clusters of clusters depending on context
short response is “yeah, sure, sorta … but only if you’re a stupid group. we can do better.”
edit: http://lesswrong.com/lw/jop/a_defense_of_senexism_deathism/akk3 is the longer version of this response
note: “life expectancy used to be ~30” is a common misconception (it’s being skewed by infant mortality) (life expectancy has gone up a lot, just not that much)
(as far as i know. i’ve been told that it’s a common misconception that this is a common misconception, but they refused to cite sources)
this is why i like ¬
script your keyboard! make it so that the chords ~1 and 1~ output a ‘¬’! or any other chord, really
if this actually sounds interesting and you use windows you can grab my script at https://github.com/alice0meta/userscripts/tree/master/ahk
i tend to express ideas tersely, which counts as poorly-explained if my audience is expecting more verbiage, so they round me off to the nearest cliche and mostly downvote me
i have mostly stopped posting or commenting on lesswrong and stackexchange because of this
like, when i want to say something, i think “i can predict that people will misunderstand and downvote me, but i don’t know what improvements i could make to this post to prevent this. sigh.”
revisiting this on 2014-03-14, i consider that perhaps i am likely to discard parts of the frame message and possibly outer message—because, to me of course it’s a message, and to me of course the meaning of (say) “belief” is roughly what http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Belief says it is
for example, i suspect that the use of more intuitively sensible grammar in this comment (mostly just a lack of capitalization) often discards the frame-message-bit of “i might be intelligent” (or … something) that such people understand from messages (despite this being an incorrect thing to understand)
-
improving signal to noise, holding the signal constant, is brevity
when brevity impedes communication, but only with a subset of people, then the reduced signal is because they’re not good at understanding brief things, so it is worth not being brief with them, but it’s not fun
revisiting this, i consider that perhaps i am likely to discard parts of the frame message and possibly outer message—because, to me of course it’s a message, and to me of course the meaning of (say) “belief” is roughly what http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Belief says it is
You’d think so, but it’s quite the opposite for me!