I failed to meet all my commitments.
Operationalize three forecasting questions
Smashed this one and created 20+ questions.
Run one MTurk/Positly survey
I have a beginning draft of a survey for the Secret of Our Success. I hoped I could finish it up yesterday, but instead I had work on shipping the LessWrong Books. Will see if I can get it out later this week.
Have at least one 2h conversation about a particular post, and write up a review after, almost regardless of how I feel the conversation went
Didn’t happen and didn’t really come close.
My main post-mortem is that I had multiple calendar reminders about the commitment, but for all of them I postponed them into the future. Until it was the last weekend and I was out of time. I should’ve spent more meta-cognition during some of them, thinking about how much time I would need to complete the tasks on time.
Reviews seem to me to have a lower karma on average than either posts, or comments on currently popular posts.
Following up on this: how did it go?
Author here: I think this post could use a bunch of improvements. It spends a bunch of time on tangential things (e.g. the discussion of Inadequacy and why this doesn’t come through in textbooks, spending a while initially setting up a view to then tear down).
But really what would be nice is to have it do a much better job at delivering the core insight. This is currently just done in two bullets + one exercise for the reader.
Even more important would be to include JenniferRM’s comment which adds a core mechanism (something like “cultural learning”).
Overall, though, I still stand by the importance of the underlying concept; and think it’s a crucial part of the toolkit required to apply economic thinking in practice.
Ah, woe is me! Fixed now, thanks!
Yeah I thought about that. I’m curious whether one could operationalise the field-picking into an interesting poll question.
Formulations are basically just lifted from the post verbatim, so the response might be some evidence that it would be good to rework the post a bit before people vote on it.
I thought a bit about how to turn Katja’s core claim into a poll question, but didn’t come up with any great ideas. Suggestions welcome.
As for whether the claims are true or not --
The “broken parts” argument is one counter-argument.
But another is that it matters a lot what learning algorithm you use. Someone doing deliberate practice (in a field where that’s possible) will vastly outperform someone who just does “guessing and checking”, or who Goodharts very hard on short-term metrics.
Maybe you’d class that under “background knowledge”? Or maybe the claim is that, modulo broken parts, motivation, and background knowledge, different people can meta-learn the same effective learning strategies?
Here are prediction questions for the predictions that TurnTrout himself provided in the concluding post of the Reframing Impact sequence.
Ey, awesome! I’ve updated the post to include them.
Reading the OP quickly, I wasn’t entirely sure what I was supposed to babble about… “100 ways to light a candle” is easier than ”...anything” :)
Consider giving some prompts that people could default to, unless they have something else in mind already?
I made some prediction questions for this, and as of January 9th, there interestingly seems to be some disagreement with the author on these.
Would definitely be curious for some discussion between Matthew and some of the people with low-ish predictions. Or perhaps for Matthew to clarify the argument made on these points, and see if that changes people’s minds.
(You can find a list of all 2019 Review poll questions here.)
I experimented with extracting some of the core claims from this post into polls:
Personally, I find that answering polls like these make me more of a “quest participant” than a passive reader. They provide a nice “think for yourself” prompt, that then makes me look at the essay with a more active mindset. But others might have different experiences, feel free to provide feedback on how it worked for you.
(You can find a list of all review poll questions here.)
I took some liberties in operationalising what seemed to me a core thesis underlying the post. Let me know if you think it doesn’t really capture the important stuff!
I’m trying out making some polls about posts for the Review (using the predictions feature). You can answer by hovering over the scale and clicking a number to indicate your agreement with the claim.
Making more land out of the about 50mi^2 shallow water in the San Francisco Bay, South of the Dumbarton Bridge, would…
For some of these questions, I tried to operationalise them to be less ambiguous than Jeff’s original formulation.
For the Review, I’m experimenting with using the predictions feature to poll users for their opinions about claims made in posts.
The first two cites Scott almost verbatim, but for the third I tried to specify further.
Feel free to add your predictions above, and let me know if you have any questions about the experience.