The greater the number of voters the less time it makes sense as an individual to spend researching the options. It seems a good first step would be to randomly reduce the number of voters to an amount that would maximize the overall quality of the decision. Any thoughts on this?
ektimo
Karma: 29
6 Minute Intro to Evolutionary Psychology
Interesting experiment. It reminds me of an experiment where subjects wore glasses that turned world upside down (really, right side up for the projection on our eye) and eventually they adjusted so the world looked upside down when taking off the glasses.
What do you think a “yes” or “no” in your experiment would mean?
Note, Dennett says in Quining Qualia :
On waking up and finding your visual world highly anomalous, you should exclaim “Egad! Something has happened! Either my qualia have been inverted or my memory-linked qualia-reactions have been inverted. I wonder which!”
Part of it is that person let someone else die (theoretically) to save his own life. You let someone die for the Latte.
Note: I drink the Latte (occasionally), but it’s because I think I can be more effective on the big stuff and that not saving is less bad than killing (as we both agree).
The point I’m responding to is:
Why are you carrying the moral burden?
Because everyone is. I’m assuming you meant that comment as saying something like the burden is diluted since so many people touch the money, but I don’t think that is valid.
Imagine a 1st world economy where nobody ever spends any money on aid. If you live in that hypothetical world you (anybody) could take $200 that is floating around and prevent a death (which is not the same as killing somebody but that’s a different point). Our world is somewhat like that. I don’t think things are as convenient as you’re implying.
Wondrous yes, but not miraculous
Star Trek, Richard Manning & Hans Beimler, Who Watches the Watchers? (reworded)
Some of my predictions are of the sort “the stock market will fall 50% tomorrow with 20% odds” (not a real prediction!). If it did happen I should get huge credit, but would it show up as negative credit since I predicted there was only a 20% chance it would happen? Is there some way it would be possible to do this kind of prediction with PredictionBook?
I predict this comment will get less than 4 points by Oct. 19 with 75% odds.
Me too. The interface for that was confusing enough that I ended up not submitting at all.
+1 for above.
As a separate question, what would you do if you lived in a world where Peter Unger was correct? And what if it was 1 penny instead of 1 dollar and giving the money wouldn’t cause other problems? Would you never have a burger for lunch instead of rice since it would mean 100 children would die who could otherwise be saved?
The price of the salt pill itself is only a few pennies. The one dollar figure was meant to include overhead. That said, the Copenhagen report mentioned above ($64 per death averted) looks more credible. But during a particular crisis the number could be less.
According to Peter Unger, it is more like one dollar:
First, a little bit about some of the horrors: During the next year, unless they’re given oral rehydration therapy, several million children, in the poorest areas of the world, will die from—I kid you not—diarrhea. Indeed, according to the United States Committee for UNICEF, “diarrhea kills more children worldwide than any other cause.” Next, a medium bit about some of the means: By sending in a modest sum to the U.S. Committee for UNICEF (or to CARE) and by earmarking the money for ORT, you can help prevent some of these children from dying. For, in very many instances, the net cost of giving this life-saving therapyis less than one dollar*
Even if this is true, I think it is still more important to spend money to reduce existential risks given that one of the factors is 6 billion + a much larger number for successive generations + humanity itself.
Yvain, did you consider how much getting to the point of not having interest in the opposite sex would cost you and harm your ability to achieve your rational goals before abandoning that high standard? It sounds like you’re confusing accepting your humanness as a factor of your current environment versus trying to achieve your goals given the reality in which you exist (which includes your own psychology and current location).
It shouldn’t default to “Today”. It ends up looking like the main page. Is this a known bug?
Popular and Top aren’t working well. I’m not sure what the difference is supposed to be, but neither of them had the articles I wanted to send to someone—the ones with the most points.
Loved the gut example.
If there was a message I could send back to my younger self this would be it. Plus that if it’s hard, don’t try to make it easier, just keep in mind that it’s important. (By younger self, I mean 7-34 years old.)
Name: Edwin Evans
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Age: 35
I read the “Meaning of Life FAQ” by a previous version of Eliezer in 1999 when I was trying to write something similar, from a Pascal’s Wager angle (even a tiny possibility of objective value is what should determine your actions). I’ve been a financial supporter of the Organization That Can’t Be Named and a huge fan of Eliezer’s writings since that same time. After reading “Crisis of Faith” along with “Could Anything Be Right?” I finally gave up on objective value; the “light in the sky” died. Feeling my mind change was an emotional experience that lasted about two days.
This is seriously in need of updating, but here is my home page.
By the way, would using Google AdWords be a good way to draw people to 12 Virtues? Here is an example from the Google keyword tool:
Search phrase: how to be better
Cost per click: $0.05
Approximate volume per month: 33,100
[Edit: added basic info/clarification/formatting]
Interesting and thanks for your response!
I didn’t mean there would be multiple stages of voting. I meant the first stage is a random selection and the second stage is the randomly chosen people voting. This puts the full weight of responsibility on the chosen ones and they should take it seriously. Sounds great if they are given money too.
The thing I feel is missing but this community has a sense for is that the bar to improving a decision when people have different opinions is far higher than people treat it. And if that’s true then the more concentrated the responsibility the better… like no more than 10 voters for anything?