jwhendy 12 Apr 2011 1:55 UTC
15 points
on: It is OK to publicly make a mistake and change your mind
This is great. I don’t have much to add specifically to the topic, other than to say I’ve been quite moved lately when contemplating the gem that LW has been for me. I received quite the input on my recent request for help, and stumbled across something recently talking about how important sharing intimate struggles and information is in terms of bonding.

I think a lot of the reason this doesn’t happen save for a few close friends is the issue of feeling “safe” sharing such information. We fear that since no one looks like on the outside how we feel on the inside—they couldn’t possibly understand or accept us and our grab bags of traits and beliefs. But it is happening… right here.

This has meant especially much to me in thinking about the general view that the non-religious (I know not everyone here is, but a lot are, and I have recently become one) have no camaraderie or support to provide. This is just plain wrong, I’m pleased to say. While the general tone here at least strikes me as quasi “cold and intellectual” (but isn’t that the nature of most of the topics, anyway?), hearts come out to play quite frequently when individuals share loss, struggles, and their softer sides.

I’ve been blown away. A post like this, while perhaps aimed at something as far from the emotional side of things as “I was wrong about FAI”… also means that a community has formed in which all of the typical fears about being wrong can be dissolved and reassured away.

This is a community aimed at helping, not the ostracizing derision that is feared in our mental movies. While I think it’s quite natural to have inclinations of pride that sway us from admitting mistakes, it’s fantastic to be part of a community where one can look at the supposed self-preservation provided by such an instinct, see it’s ineffectiveness, and then admit, “Schucks… I was wrong about that, too.”

Thanks for the reminder and encouragement.

Request for input: draft of my “coming out” statement on religious deconversion

jwhendy3 Mar 2012 21:58 UTC

14 points

90 comments2 min readLW link

jwhendy 16 Sep 2011 19:46 UTC
13 points
on: The Cognitive Science of Rationality
1. Unpacking the components involved in a large task or project helps people to see more clearly how much time and how many resources will be required to complete it, thereby partially meliorating the planning fallacy.
The planning fallacy article seems to contradict this...

But experiment has shown that the more detailed subjects’ visualization, the more optimistic (and less accurate) they become. (In saying this, EY cites the work of Buehler, 2002. [1])

Is there something from your citation (#26) that overrides the conclusions of Buehler? [2] In fact, #5 was the conclusion proposed in “Planning Fallacy,” which I thought was made specifically because examining all the details was so unreliable. In other words, #5 seems to say: forget about all the details; just find similar projects that actually happened and base your timeline on them.

[1] Buehler, R., Griffin, D. and Ross, M. 2002. Inside the planning fallacy: The causes and consequences of optimistic time predictions. Pp. 250-270 in Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. and Kahneman, D. (eds.) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

[2] For #6, you cited: Connolly & Dean (1997); Forsyth & Burt (2008); Kruger & Evans (2004).

jwhendy 23 Mar 2011 1:46 UTC
13 points
in reply to: Mass_Driver’s comment on: Rationality Boot Camp
Indeed—can someone speak to this? I’m married with a full time engineering job. There’s no way I could get 10 weeks for this, despite how much I really, really, really want to. This seems tailored toward the unemployed, students, or simply those with ridiculously flexible work arrangements that I can’t even fathom.

I favor the post above about making materials available. Heck.. maybe you should video record all the lectures as well.

I definitely see the benefits of “full immersion”—it’s just that at a certain point in life, I can’t see ever being able to “fully immerse” myself again. I finally have the awareness and desire for things like this… but it’s at a time when I can’t participate. When I could have participated, I don’t think I would have fully appreciated what a fantastic opportunity something like this would have been.

Does that make sense?

Meetup meta: please think carefully when posting—add desired time/title the first time

jwhendy19 Apr 2011 15:32 UTC

12 points

9 comments1 min readLW link

jwhendy 21 Apr 2011 3:52 UTC
12 points
in reply to: Emile’s comment on: Official Less Wrong Redesign: Call for Suggestions
Upvoting the need for a notification when someone makes a top-level comment to a post you created.
What links here?
- childofbaud's comment on Official Less Wrong Redesign: Call for Suggestions by Louie (28 Apr 2011 3:34 UTC; 0 points)

jwhendy 18 Mar 2011 2:03 UTC
12 points
on: How to Be Happy
This was great, Luke. I didn’t see anything in the post or replies about developing skills that aren’t explicitly social/extrovert-focused (other than the perhaps the related encouragement to operate in “the flow”), so I thought I’d share a personal story of such development.

When I was in 3rd or 4th grade, my handwriting was terrible. My mom bought me one of those learning-to-write-cursive books where you just copy letters over pages and pages, using a bot and bottom solid line and a dashed middle line as a guide.

This drastically improved my handwriting, but I think it also increased my fine-motor skills or something, as I found I had the ability do things like calligraphy and, more recently, fine-ish woodworking. I share this because I think the skill was more or less learned, and the knowledge that I have done the cursive book let me look at other things and think, “I think I might be able to do that.” For examples, see:
- Engraved glass on a wedding picture I made my wife for Christmas (before I deconverted)
- An inlaid picture frame I made my wife this past Christmas
- A cribbage board for a friend’s birthday
- Another cribbage board for my wife’s dad’s birthday
I share these because they are all instances of using my cursive-based hand control on something not obviously connected/related. I learned to inlay literally by watching one video and reading one instructable. Again, the cursive was all that allowed me to look at the video and instructable and think, “Wow, I think I might actually be able to do that.” So I tried and think I succeeded.

Ok. Long comment. Just trying to get something on the board about trying to find potentially useless skills (wow, I can write like a kindergartener), and applying them to other areas. I’ve simply replaced a pen with a diamond tipped etcher and a router and made some things that were very satisfying to me and increased my happiness. I’ve made three of these boards for birthdays now and giving them away is quite satisfying as well. Since others have seen them, I’ve also been able to find three who are willing to buy them from me, which is also quite satisfying!

Think outside the box when it comes to skills—you may do something you think is mundane but that could be put to pretty neat use elsewhere.

jwhendy 12 Apr 2011 3:38 UTC
11 points
on: Virgin Galactic hiring full time astronauts [link]
My view is typically that links should be summarized at least a little to help the reader decide whether to follow. Pretty much what he said.

Also, is this just for the “wow” factor? Like, “Someone is hiring astronauts. Amazing!”? Or is it to try and help anyone here with employment? I don’t get it. And the fact that there’s no description of what you’re doing with the link leaves me completely in the dark.

On the off chance that you’re actually posting an employment opportunity, please add this to your post:

Essentials for Pilot-Astronaut successful candidates
- Must be a US citizen – compliant with ITAR (22 CFR §120.15)
- A current FAA commercial (or equivalent) pilot license and FAA medical (you will be required to produce evidence of both at interview)
- Degree level qualification in a relevant technical field
- Graduate of a recognized test pilot school, with at least 2 ½ years post-graduate flight test experience (you will be required to produce evidence at interview)
- A diverse flying background with a minimum of 3,000 hours flying to include considerable experience of: large multi-engine aircraft and high performance fast jet aircraft and low lift-to-drag ratio glide experience (e.g. simulated flameout landings) in complex aircraft
- Operational experience of an aerospace aviation project or business
’Cause that rules out most people here, I reckon, and they can save themselves time if hope of employment is why they followed the link.

jwhendy 16 Jan 2011 15:37 UTC
11 points
on: The Best Textbooks on Every Subject
Luke—I wonder if either permalinks to comments answering the task, or direct quotes of them could be added to your main post (say, after two+ weeks have passed)? I know in other posts where a question is asked it can be very difficult to sift through the “meta” comments and the actual answers, especially as comments get into the 100-200+ range!

jwhendy 13 Feb 2011 16:53 UTC
10 points
in reply to: David_Gerard’s comment on: Science: Do It Yourself
Yes—I agree, though the article focused a bit more on somewhat intangibles[1] for me. Try to apply science to daily life. Rather than wondering and walking away or leaving it in the realm of unknowable—try to figure out how you might find out.

While the article does cultivate a similar approach, I think just applying these sorts of things to immediate daily life might be a more immediate way to visualize how the scientific method (and rationality in general) can be effective. Some that have happened to me:
- What’s wrong with my garage door? It keeps stopping on the way down Inspect various components, form a hypothesis (unlubricated bearings) and test (lubricate bearings and raise/lower door several times). Begin again.
- The insulation in my attic seems less than adequate (MN suggest a R-60 and I have about R-20). Calculate cost (~$200 for enough bags of blowing insulation + $50 for machine rental—energy tax credit of %30 off). Seems reasonable. Blow insulation (done) and compare energy bills (in process).
- Disagreement with wife about which path is fastest. Form hypothesis and then next time we drive separately, agree to both drive the speed limit and see who gets home first.
Perhaps stupid cases. The point is that cultivating a “scientific” gets one in the habit of thinking “Let’s find out” in response to a question rather than “I think x” based on intuition or popular adage and then never finding your own data.

[1] By “intangible” I mean that the examples in the article struck me as things that are unlikely (for me) to come up on their own; I’ve got enough other items I’m thinking about solving as it is. In giving some other examples, I guess I’m trying to present the idea of just considering the testable obstacles already in one’s daily path. We probably have plenty of these already. What’s wrong with my computer? How can I fix x? This seems, to me, as a more “concrete” application with immediate results compared to me wondering about the Dow Jones adjusted rate. Though, I will say that I hope to carve out time to tackle those sorts of questions as well. For now, I’ll stick with the things I run smack into. I guess that’s just where I’m at.

jwhendy 16 Jan 2011 22:36 UTC
10 points
on: The annoyingness of New Atheists: declaring God Dead makes you a Complete Monster?
I’ll share some thoughts since I’ve been through a recent deconversion...
- First, let go of any notions you have of changing someone’s mind. Especially in one or more sittings filled with discussion.
- Second, drill into your mind that typical gauges of the accuracy of a theory/explanation such as tangible evidence, repeatability, and predictability will fall apart in theological discussions. There will always be an apologist to provide a counter-attack for any charge you bring, and this counter-attack will not have it’s roots in tangibility, but in a possibility which the theist knows you cannot demonstrate to be conclusively false.
- Lastly, I have begun to postulate that any discussion of reasons a theist might think support their belief will be fruitless, as I’m not convinced many theists realize what actually provides their belief. I say this as 80% or so of believers will have been raised in that belief system. No reasons necessary—only trust in parents. Only later were reasons a-z provided as a “defense” of the belief. When a theist volunteers some set of a-z as supporting their belief… they may believe those reasons to be crucial without recognizing that the set was only tacked on afterward. Thus, don’t be surprised if even if you can destroy a-z… the belief still stands. It was never based on a-z in the first place for most theists.
Lastly, to share my own tactics since I happen to be married to a believer… I never engage in any head-on confrontational debates anymore. I find it fruitless and that it only leads to dissent on both sides. It’s difficult enough to discuss these matters… don’t add resentment as a further barrier to someone listening to you and changing their mind.

I have found it helpful to simply ask questions. My wife just heard a talk on prayer and intercession and “Why god says ‘no’ sometimes.” I found the whole thing riddled with issues, but I have come to find it more effective to simply ask inquisitive questions rather than ridicule or attack:
- Hmmm. Interesting. So, if I understand correctly, the speaker said that sometimes god wants to let us suffer to be more united with him. He also said we should pray only for things that are god’s will. If that’s the case, how might we know if someone gets hurt if we should pray for their healing or pray for them to remain injured to suffer and grow in holiness?
Things like that. After a number of those types of question (and my wife not being sure how to answer), I simply asked if she felt like the questions seemed to require somewhat convoluted answers. She said yes. Does’t mean she’s going to abandon belief. For now, she believes that someone “smarter than her” would be able to answer the questions… but I find it enough at the present moment for her to at least be brought to understand that the answers seem convoluted. And then I can introduce the fact that correct solutions tend to be the simplest ones that can account for all the details.

I’ll depart with a flow-chart for these discussions I was just sent. It’s filled with unstated assumptions and other flaws, but interesting nonetheless (LINK).

jwhendy 6 Jan 2011 2:53 UTC
10 points
on: Welcome to Less Wrong!
Hi, I’ve been hanging around for several months now and decided to join. My name is John and I found the site (I believe) via a link on CommonSenseAtheism to How to actually change your mind. I read through many of those posts and took notes and resonated with a lot. I loved EY’s Twelve Virtues and the Litany of Gendlin.

I’m a graduate in mechanical engineering and work as one today. I don’t know that I would call myself a rationalist, but only because I haven’t perhaps become one. In other words, I want to be but do not consider myself to be well-versed in rationalist methods and thought compared to posts/comments I read here.

To close, I was brought to this site in a round-about way because I have recently de-converted from Catholicism (which is what took me to CSA). I’m still amidst my “quest” and blog about it HERE. I would say I’m not sure god doesn’t exist or that Christianity is false, but the belief is no longer there. I seek to be as certain and justified I can in whatever beliefs I hold. LessWrong has seemed to be a good tool toward that end. I look forward to continuing to learn and want to take this opportunity to begin participating more.

Note: I also post as “Hendy” on several other blogs. We are the same.
What links here?
- My story / owning one’s reasons by jwhendy (7 Jan 2011 0:17 UTC; 70 points)
- jwhendy's comment on Request for input: draft of my “coming out” statement on religious deconversion by jwhendy (5 Mar 2012 18:23 UTC; 6 points)

jwhendy 6 Apr 2011 19:39 UTC
9 points
on: Cryptanalysis as Epistemology? (paging cryptonerds)
Could one possible answer be that we still don’t understand the plaintext behind the encryption? In other words, attempting various decryption seems to rely on the fact that you know what you’re looking for underneath. You know what the end result should be.

The end result should be bits that are ordered and make up 1) some sort of filesystem and 2) files on that filesystem that are coherent as to be interpreted by something as intelligible data (e.g., something that a text editor, image viewer, or audio player could then interpret for you into words, sights, or sounds).

But… what if I did the following:
- create one partition, /dev/sda1
- cryptsetup -c aes-xts-plain -y -s 512 luksFormat /dev/sda1
- open and mount the encrypted partion
- dd if=/dev/urandom of=/mnt bs=1M
- unmount and shutdown
Now you use whatever tools you want to “decrypt” my drive. Imagine you are able to identify my algorithm and even my actual password. Groovy; but now you go about studying the data and begin vigorously banging your head against a wall. Why doens’t it make sense even though it’s decrypted??

Perhaps bad analogy. My suspicion is that unless we both successfully decrypt and know what we were looking for, “decryption” wouldn’t help make the underlying information any more intelligible, even though nature doesn’t destroy it’s patterns.

After a re-read just to make sure no “stupid-alarms” went off, maybe I don’t understand the ”???”, either. I guess the other examples struck me as cases where we do know what we’re looking for—some correlation, a difference between a control and experimental group while varying just one thing between them, watching objects to see what they do and how to describe their behavior using set values.

I took the last box to be “how do we run advanced decryption on the remaining unknowns” and I’m saying that it might come down to knowing what we would be looking for if we successfully decrypted the information before using those techniques would be useful. And this seems like the case in the rest of the examples.

jwhendy 31 Mar 2011 15:24 UTC
9 points
on: Reflections on rationality a year out
Great post! Could you change your comment link to point HERE? Not knowing your story, I found the comment you linked to unclear. I had to keep clicking to show more comments to understand what you were discussing changing your mind/having belief in belief about.