Here is a list of all my public writings and videos.
If you want to do a dialogue with me, but I didn’t check your name, just send me a message instead. Ask for what you want!
lsusr
Karma: 15,939
Fixed. Thanks.
[Question] Is there software to practice reading expressions?
The way I look at things, there are multiple steps to learning how to think better. The first step is realizing that your thoughts are an incoherent mess. Then you develop a taste for good reasoning. After that you can learn good thinking skills.
Whereas if you start by trying to learn good thinking skills, then it’s very easy to say things that sound correct but are actually unsound.
I like to start from the beginning, and then take as long as is necessary with each step.
Fixed. Thanks.
Fixed. Thanks.
Fixed. Thanks.
Fixed. Thanks.
Fixed. Thanks.
Fixed. Thanks.
Fixed. Thanks.
Details aside, you nailed the ambiance.
In my imagination there’s no statute in the center. Just a pool of water in the center, but I like the second row of statues. The acolyte in that picture works well too.
Did you use the keyword “Parthenon”? That’s what the building is based on.
I do! Never seen that one before. It’s interesting. I wish I had an easy way to confirm its accuracy, but the more I think about it, the more of my real life experience I connect it to.
The recursion example rings especially true. It’s not just in writing that the ability to do recursion seems to have a hard cutoff.
That greentext helps me understand other people so much better. I take the ability to distinguish ethical anachronisms for granted, and hadn’t realized how difficult it must be for other people.
Not much. I’m using it as a proxy measurement for general knowledge.
I was thinking about that scene when I wrote this post.
That part seems reasonable.
Back to Basics: Truth is Unitary
Wow. “Level 2” includes things like “the respondent may have to make use of a novel online form”.
The thing I’m trying to do is calibrate my model of the distribution of human intelligence. The actual distribution is way lower than my immediate environment makes it appear. Here’s another post I wrote which should provide some context on what I mean when I write about “human intelligence”. The basic idea is that things like “can fix a carburetor” and “understands genetics” are correlated, not anti-correlated.
Here’s the exact title and subtitle.
Title: New Poll Gauges Americans’ General Knowledge Levels
Subtitle: Four-fifths know earth revolves around sun
Why are they even wronger?
That’s a good point. Human intuitions are geocentric, so the number of people guessing on the heliocentrism question is probably less than 18%. From an expected value perspective, we can treat 18% as guessing, whereas from a default geocentric perspective we can treat 0% as guessing.
But it goes both ways. For questions matching human intuition, if % guess wrong then we should assume >% got it correct by guessing.
This is where the word “belief” gets fuzzy. I think that’s what’s actually going on is that going on with the laser question is people read “Lasers work by focusing <mumble>” which does match the truth. Due to bad heuristics, it’s possible for more than 50% of a survey population to guess wrong on a true-or-false question, which means the things they guess right need to be adjusted downward of else we get nonsensical results.
To clarify: I am looking specifically for a tool that trains me to read facial expressions—especially eye expressions—better. This is exactly what I am after.