Just to keep this up-to-date, I think V2 of this post addresses my concerns and I consider this an excellent fit for the 2018 review.
Bucky
Karma: 1,220
This post matches very strongly with my experiences both in a growing company attempting to resist becoming maze-like and in a larger company with a new CEO attempting to reduce maze-structure.
For the points r.e. nations do you have examples or are they just inferences (which, to be fair, seem reasonable)?
Zvi made a reference post to the Kelly Criterion a while back which might be a good starting point.
This is an interesting idea. Essentially you penalise dishonesty by making the pot smaller.
This works provided one player doesn’t predictably have a lower maximum bet and can then increase their maximum bet (and therefore the overall pot) while simultaneously misrepresenting their believed odds.
Did you consider using the Kelly Criterion for the mini-bets instead of using a flat rate? I’m not sure how this would affect the result but I suspect it might have some nice properties.
I recognised the humour and was responding in kind—specifically that if we are destroyed by aliens then I’m unlikely to be in a position to pay you what I owe...
Working perfectly now :)
The right hand side of the interface isn’t working for me—the scroll bar looks like its scrolling down but the text doesn’t move. I’m using Firefox.
FWIW, I agree that it is good/important for mods to be able to state their own opinions freely. My only worry was that a book form of the review might lose this nuance if this is not stated explicitly.
I’m willing to place a large bet on 14 at 1000:1
If we are not destroyed by aliens then you owe me $1,000,000, if we are all destroyed by aliens then I owe you $1,000,000,000.
How are you defining “hand”?
Obviously this beats humans for speed but I guess you’re thinking of something which is general purpose and Rubik’s cube is just a test of dexterity?
What seemed like a memory was actually an inference.
This is a great phrasing of something I notice happening to me.
My best solution so far is to notice that this might be a problem and admit it (even when I feel confident I’m right). This weakens the link between my social standing and whether the memory is correct, which lowers my bias towards remembering self-advantageously.
That’s really interesting. You can actually try a task which was used yourself.
Part of it seems to be that chimps are able to perform the task super fast—I can do the 9 number task on easy, on medium I can do it ok-ish and think if I kept practicing I’d be fairly consistent, but I don’t even have time to take all the numbers in on chimp speed.
I’m also not sure what to make of it. One possibility would be that chimps have an incredible short term memory (something like photographic) but that humans doing the same task have to rely on working memory. That would explain the speed at which they can take in all of the information.
Whilst I don’t think the thesis rests on it, it seemed like the strongest (and most surprising to me) evidence if it were true. It actually does provide some evidence that the gap isn’t as large as one might think.
You might want to edit the OP for anyone who doesn’t get round to reading the comments.
One example is the chimpanzee, which may have better working memory
This isn’t what the linked paper says. It claims that
Chimps + practice > humans
but
Humans + practice >> chimps + practice
From the abstract:
There is no evidence for a superior or qualitatively different spatial memory system in chimpanzees.
Throughout the OP my main question was what does Jameson think about this. It felt a bit odd to me that a specific voting method was being advocated without at least some of his input.
Slightly nitpicky:
The update from the prior isn’t quite right here. I would have to consider what probability I would have assigned to you having the opinion outlined in your comment if the idea was bad vs if the idea was good.
As you’re only saying 50% confidence it’s hard to distinguish good from bad so an update would probably be of a lesser magnitude and would naively not update in either direction. My actual update would be away from the extremes—it probably isn’t amazing but it probably isn’t terrible.
There’s an app for that
There would be an analogous example in hydraulics where positive displacement pumps are constant flow (~current) sources and centrifugal pumps are constant(ish*) pressure (~voltage) sources. The resistor would be a throttle.
In this case it is the underlying physical nature of the types of pumps which causes the effect rather than a feedback loop.
*At least at lower flow rates.
This makes sense to me.
I think to do this instead of preferring certain ratios between answers, we should prefer certain answers.
Under the original scoring scheme 50:50:0:0 doesn’t score differently from 50:0:50:0 or 50:0:0:50. The average credence for each answer between those 3 is 50:17:17:17 so I’d argue that (without some external marking of which incorrect answers are more reasonable) 50:50:0:0 should score the same as 50:17:17:17.
However we could choose a marking scheme where you get back (using my framing of log scoring above):
100% of the points put on A
10% of the points put on B
10% of the points put on C
0% of the points put on D
That way 50:50:0:0 and 50:25:25:0 both end up with 55% of their points but 50:17:17:17 gets 53.4% and 50:0:0:50 gets 50%. Play around with the percentages to get rewards that seem reasonable—I think it would still be a proper scoring rule*. You could do something similar with a quadratic scoring rule.
*I think one danger is that if I am unsure but I think I can guess what the teacher thinks is reasonable/unreasonable then this might tempt me to alter my score based on something other than my actual credence levels.
I don’t think there has been enough turnover of staff for this to actually be effective. However I would say that the difference between those executives hired before and after his arrival is noticeable. The number of levels has been reduced somewhat (10 → 8 ish) and the structure simplified. As a result I think its kind of well known who you need to speak to if you actually want anything to get done.
So yeah, I’d say there’s been progress but the culture of the organisation is still held back by those who are comfortable in the maze.
I should say that the company isn’t nearly as bad as the worst described in the sequence but there are certainly departments within the company which feel very maze-like.