The only solution to this is financial literacy education
Maybe. But I suspect that financial literacy education will be about as successful at improving people’s financial choices as education about diet and exercise are at improving people’s weight. (Which is to say, not at all.)
People may not know how much debt they have or how much it’s costing them, but they know they have debt and they know it’s costing them. They know they should save, but saving doesn’t trigger a release of endorphins or dopamine or whatever in the brain that you get from buying a more comfortable car or clothes that you adore or even from donating.
Sure there’s a few edge cases, like your friend that wants to invest before paying off loans, that might be helped by some financial education. But chances are good that even he is more influenced by reward structures than by ignorance; investing can feel like gambling, which is risky, and therefore fun to people who like risks...in a way that paying off debt obligations is not.
I’m not better at saving than my husband is because I’m more financially literate that he is. He’s worked as an accountant; I’m pretty sure he knows more than I do. But I’m better at saving than he is because risk is extremely unpleasant to me, unpleasant enough to override my desire for most things that I want to own. He likes risk more than I do, and so he doesn’t have the same incentive to resist the urge to buy things, so he doesn’t resist those urges.
I...only followed some of what you said here. *Googles slack channel* … Sure, if you know other people who are interested in a similar concept, that might be worthwhile. How do we go about it?
What is weirdsun?
Minimum wage is actually somewhat like diet, since it could be that some places and not others would be better off adopting it, depending on their varied conditions. While values dominate discussions of actions, I think the epistemic questions of what the consequences of those actions are are very important. And “if X, then Y” is a claim of truth.
In the end, I think that both actions and truth-claims rely heavily on both objective truth and on values. Valuing Breitbart or Slate as a reliable source can determine what facts you believe, and it isn’t possible to completely divorce questions of truth from values about sources, about what level of evidence is needed before accepting a claim, and such. I would like to make those more explicit.
I do think the diet thing would be the kind of question that would be hardest to succeed at. I think the Site could handle some degree of “different solutions for different situations”, but the level of variability in medical questions might be beyond it.
Right off the top of my head, every debate website I’ve come across so far puts topics into simplified yes/no questions instead of considering multiple possible alternatives next to each other. That’s true of Kialo, DebateIsland, Debate.org, ProCon.org, CreateDebate, iDebate.org, and more.
What do you think is the minimum subset to build and sustain a userbase?
Really large, which is a major fail point.
I don’t think reaching consensus is generally possible for the kind of arguments you’re interested in
I think consensus is not possible for some of them; we’re not going to “solve” abortion or God. On issues like that, the best that could be accomplished is helping people understand where the other is coming from and reducing animosity a little. (Which I think would be very worthwhile, if that could be accomplished, but even that might not happen.) Some compromise actions might possibly become popular, like privately funding programs for low-income women who might otherwise have abortions.
On other topics, I think we might be able to come much closer to a consensus than we are. Maybe not 100%, but a well-laid-out argument for adopting a different voting system, enacting a particular set of campaign finance reforms, a phase-out plan for eliminating or changing government farm subsidies, or a suggestion for how amazon can increase employee satisfaction without losing profits...those might make it pretty close to consensus.
Pinterest for arguments
That’s...a really interesting idea. That might satisfy my desire to quickly find all the important aspects on an issue in one place. You’d have to mentally build the organization between ideas and options yourself, instead of having them visually laid out, but you’d spare yourself the trouble of forcing people to build or agree on that organization. Are you going to build it? Do you think a lot of people would use it if you did?
That’s a really cool site. I think it only can cover truth-claims from the past (not proposed actions or if-then truth-claims about the future), but it will really excel at those. I’ll keep it bookmarked.
I see no reason to expect that popular voting will lead to the best argument winning out for issues where a lot of evidence has to be understood and set in relation.
Does this mean you think the idea, at root, is not worth it, or that you think it will help with some issues and not with others?
It seems to me a pretty strange decision to want the barrier of entry as low as possible by allowing IP editors.
I expect that a high(er) barrier to entry will produce a self-selected subpopulation that will sometimes miss out on important ideas or points that people outside that subpopulation would have thought of. I’m willing to put up with a great deal of dross in order to make sure that all the good stuff is caught.
Yes. It’s better than the alternatives I’ve seen, but it still feels seriously insufficient to me. Some of that is just because Kialo itself isn’t large/popular enough to have comprehensive points made on it yet. But my bigger objection is that it feels simplistic. Example. Kialo presents: “Should Governments Ever Limit Free Speech?” with a series of mostly one-sentence points on either side. It doesn’t examine different possible ways that governments have or could limit free speech, and the possible or real-life past consequences of each. The arguments on both sides are almost exclusively value-statements with almost no reference to possible facts. (Values should, generally, dominate pro/con arguments about actions, but facts should be appealed to in order to support the claim that an action does/does-not support a value, and more so when claiming expected consequences.)
Kialo doesn’t offer a way to break down the question into more specific options (maybe real free speech shouldn’t be limited, but political contributions should stop being counted as speech; maybe Germany should limit holocaust-denial speech but the U.S. shouldn’t). Kialo’s format currently encourages people to post opinions on topics more than it encourages people to think more deeply about topics. It’s possible that could be changed with greater participation or with Kialo somehow working to create a culture of deeper thinking. But I don’t see that there now.
I also think that logging in to post is a barrier to it growing as a crowd-sourced site. And I dislike showing the Like votes instead of only using them to sort, because I think that encourages people to pay attention to how popular an opinion is, and it makes those with minority opinions painfully aware that they are in the minority.
I’ve read the (original?) Sequences, and I definitely do not feel qualified to do work in AI Safety, game theory, or decision theory. There are many posts on Less Wrong about those topics that I don’t even understand enough to follow, much less enough to contribute or critique them. So yes, I think most people would have to read textbooks on the subject or otherwise do a lot more learning work to significantly contribute. This is not too surprising; enough people have been doing enough work on those topics for enough years that I should not expect to be able to jump into it without some effort to cover what they’ve done and catch up.
I think most people stay in “off-the-cuff” territory most of the time. Getting past that usually requires putting in some effort, which requires motivation. That motivation could be internal—that you find the problem very interesting or very bothersome/worrisome on a personal level. Or external—you’re getting paid to work on it. If you aren’t getting paid and the topic has a primarily academic/abstract feel to it [which is often the case here], you will likely come up with some easy off-the-cuff ideas and stop at precisely that point at which the difficulty of thinking more about it becomes higher than your interest in it.
That sounds great.
Out of curiosity, does the glossary include terms that aren’t particularly rationality-related, but which may not be familiar to less-scientifically-interested readers? (Examples: light cones, configuration space).
However, for the other two I ‘just see’ the correct answer. Is this common for other people, or do you have a different split?
For all three questions, the wrong answer comes to my mind first*. But especially in the context of expecting a trick question, I second-guess it and come up with the correct answer fairly quickly.
*In the third question, the actual answer “24” does not come to mind first, but the general sense of “half that number” does. My mind does not actually calculate what half of 48 is before finishing thinking through the problem.
That is a good point.
Here’s my rehash of how your conversation comes across to me:
Benquo: #MeToo is good.
t3tsubo: Here’s 3 examples of people who have suffered negative consequences from being falsely accused.
Benquo: Those first two were before #MeToo, not bothering to check the third.
t3tsubo: They still had their lives ruined as part of outrage culture.
Benquo: Broader cultural trends =/= #MeToo, and yeah, I agree there’s some problems with broader cultural trends, but I don’t think #MeToo has made it any worse.
t3tsubo: So we define #MeToo differently.
---followed by completely talking past each other---
At this point, Disputing Definitions becomes relevant. You are insisting on the claim that (a) #MeToo-alberzle (the broader cultural trend of being more open and accusing towards sexual harassment) has negative downsides.
He is insisting on the claim (b) #MeToo-bargulum (the specific thing started by Milano’s tweet in 2017) does not have serious downsides (only some minor ones).
He briefly agreed with you that (a) was true, and you didn’t seem to respond to that agreement. He repeatedly protested that your 3 cases—or the 2 he bothered to check—didn’t support (not-b). He is correct about that; they only support (a). To move the conversation forward, you needed to stop and think about whether you only want to assert (a), in which case you are both in agreement, yay, conversation over...or whether you also want to assert (not-b), in which case you should come up with some examples that support (not-b).
the definition that we have used in the sequence of our problem of pain doesn’t allow for potential suffering—only suffering that is actually experienced
Honestly, I feel like you are playing word games, and I think I’ve lost interest in continuing the conversation.
Both forms of suffering, not-chase-ball and hit-by-car, would be suffering that is endured by B. In that sense, they’re both from B’s perspective, even though B never experiences hit-by-car, which is the whole point. A is choosing an action which results in less suffering from B’s perspective than B will experience if A chooses otherwise, even if B doesn’t happen to know that.
If you’re using perspective in a different sense, then you’re making a different point that I’m not currently following.
Ah, the parent defense.
A imposes suffering (not-chase-ball) in order to prevent a greater suffering (hit-by-car); and it is important that A does not have the option to prevent hit-by-car except by imposing not-chase-ball. Because A didn’t create the system in the first place and has outside constraints imposed by reality on A’s options. Thus, within A’s limits, imposing the lesser suffering is the maximally loving option that A has.
If you are happy doing so I would like to focus on this statement first.
I mean, sure, we can focus on that. But I feel like you’re doing a lot of inquiring as to my position without giving me even a rough idea of your own. Which is a little frustrating, fyi.
from whose perspective must suffering be reduced?
Mine? I’m not really clear what you’re asking. The suffering I want reduced is the suffering experienced from the perspective of the person suffering. I’m the one who’s doing the wanting (although the vast majority of sufferers want their suffering reduced as well). I’m not really a moral objectivist, so it’s my subjective moral-things-that-I-care-about that I’m asking a hypothetical God to live up to.
No, I don’t want to quantify pain. Honestly, I think it takes optimism to look at the variety and extremes of suffering and decide they might all be worth it in some way. Do you have that optimism? What do you think makes the suffering worth it, if so?
Do people who do not do so become unloving beings?
Some caveats—“less than maximally loving” rather than “unloving”, and the aforementioned restriction on “within the being’s physical and emotional limits”—but basically, yes, if you can reduce someone’s suffering and don’t, you’re not loving them as much as you could.
I don’t think this is the crux of the discussion.
What do you think IS the crux of the discussion?