I have taken the survey… away from everyone.
No one can have it.
It lives under my bed now.
Regex
Karma: 242
If he just has an instinct that a 6 should come up again, but can’t explain where that instinct comes from or defend that belief in any kind of rational way other then “it feels right”, then he’s probably not being rational.
Maybe in the specific example of randomness, but I don’t think you can say the general case of ‘it feels so’ is indefensible. This same mechanism is used for really complicated black box intuitive reasoning that underpins any trained skill. So in in areas one has a lot of experience in, or areas which are evolutionary keyed in such as social interactions or in nature this isn’t an absurd belief.
In fact, knowing that these black box intuitions exist means they they have to be included in our information about the world, so ‘give high credence to black box when it says something’ may be the best strategy if ones ability for analytic reasoning is insufficient to determine strategies with results better than that.
It appears I can’t replicate it either. I may have updated Firefox since last week or something? 54.0.1 (32-bit) is my current version.
Playing around with the debates on firefox causes graphical glitches http://i.imgur.com/QsoLeqn.jpg
Chrome seems to work, but these submenus don’t close after you click on them http://i.imgur.com/sbNBhZ1.png
Before even reading it I was confused.
Epistemic status for the first part of this post:
[image of thinking woman in front of math]
Epistemic status for the second part:
[Image of greek? philosopher preaching]
Admittedly I should probably know who the second image is of, but I have no idea what they’re trying to say with either of these.
As we say in the Bayesian conspiracy: even if you’re not interested in base rates, base rates are interested in you.
No. Stop. This is just awkward to read.
I suspect this will end up being something more akin to self-study groups that produce teaching material as a direct result of learning the material themselves. For example, writing up an explanation of how to do a particular book example. This doubles as an assessment of people’s skills since other people that know the topic really well can build on those explanations or correct mistakes.
With a series of such explanations, anyone else trying to go through the material will have a clearer pathway for the level of understanding of a given sub-topic they need to develop to progress: the exercises and readings needed to be able to understand something, or do a particular difficulty of project.
The S is for “Skitter”
This points to a need of looking for, building off prior work where possible.
Taking it a step further to generate a method of meta-solving this problem: there are many parallels here to programming and device connectors of old (phone charger or other standards). I would imagine we could look to how those sorts of problems were solved and apply or derive the analogous technique here.
It seems to me that the sadistic simulator would fill up their suffering simulator to capacity. But is it worse for two unique people to be simulated and suffering compared to the same person simulated and suffering twice? If we say copies suffering is less bad than unique minds, If they didn’t have enough unique human minds, they could just apply birth/genetics and grow some more.
This is more of a simulating-minds-at-all problem than a unique-minds-left-to-simulate problem.
Now people have to call you doctor CellBioGuy
Comment being non-spam and coherent is considered a bare minimum around here. Using the rule of upvoting nearly everything would induce noise. With the current schema of being a signal of quality, or used to say ‘more like this’ (not necessarily even ‘I agree’) provides a strong signal of quality discourse which is lost otherwise.
Evolving thoughts link is down. Archive.org link
The results of my five minutes of thinking:
take sample of group you want to measure sanity for:
productivity
goal achievement
correct predictions, especially correct contrarians
ability to recognize fallacious thinking
willingness to engage with political opponents
ability to develop nuanced political opinions
ability to detect lies and deception in information sources
Went in a different direction than the post. The list I generated seems to have turned far more to abstract individual sanity ideas than things we already have numbers for.
I think you’re coming on a little strong in ways you don’t intend for requesting his process and previous system iterations. This reads as if you should never share any system without also sharing the process of how to get there, and most of the time that is filled with stuff no one really needs to see.
Alas, this group went bust, but I think I pretty much figured out why. Wrote my thoughts up for everyone’s pleasure.
I agree. Nowhere else are we likely to get something optimized for that especially since it took nearly a decade to create.
Apparently it “never saw daylight”. I bet he’d still have a copy for the materials if one were to get in contact with him. How much of that wouldn’t be in Thinking Fast and Slow though?
My first thought: “Oh, you leave your house.”
I’m either at my computer or class with little time between, so there isn’t much downtime for me to even use my phone. It is just an alarm clock people can talk to me from.
Admittedly I do have a tablet, but for the most part it is used for taking notes and so it may as well be replaced by a paper notebook, but I’m a sucker for OneNote. Because I spend every non-class minute walking or at home I’ve yet to give my tablet another role beyond that since my desktop is so much superior.
Welcome!
I’ve seen these sorts of argument maps before.
https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Debate_tools http://en.arguman.org/
It seems there is some overlap with your list here
Generally what I’ve noticed about them is that they focus very hard on things like fallacies. One problem here is that some people are simply better debaters even though their ideas may be unsound. Because they can better follow the strict argument structure they ‘win’ debates, but actually remain incorrect.
For example: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1437 He uses mostly the same arguments debate after debate and so has a supreme advantage over his opponents. He picks apart the responses, knowing full well all of the problems with typical responses. There isn’t really any discussion going on anymore. It is an exercise in saying things exactly the right way without invoking a list of problem patterns. See: http://lesswrong.com/lw/ik/one_argument_against_an_army/
Now, this should be slightly less of an issue since everyone can see what everyone’s arguments are, and we should expect highly skilled people on both sides of just about every issue. That said the standard for actual solid evidence and arguments becomes rather ridiculous. It is significantly easier to find some niggling problem with your opponents argument than to actually address its core issues.
I suppose I’m trying to describe the effects of the ‘fallacy fallacy.’
Thus a significant portion of manpower is spent on wording and putting the argument precisely exactly right instead of dealing with the underlying facts. You’ll also have to deal with the fact that if a majority of people believe something then the shear amount of manpower they can spend on shoring up their own arguments and poking holes in their opponents will make it difficult for minority views to look like they hold water.
What are we to do with equally credible citations that say opposing things?
‘Every argument ever made’ is a huge goal. Especially with the necessary standards people hold arguments to. Are you sure you’ve got something close to the right kind of format to deal with that? How many such formats have you tried? Why are you thinking of using this one over those? Has this resulted in your beliefs actually changing at any point? Has this actually improved the quality of arguments? Have you tried testing them with totally random people off of the street versus nerds versus academics? Is it actually fun to do it this way?
From what I have seen so far I’ll predict there will be a the lack of manpower, and that you’ll end up with a bunch of arguments marked full of holes in perpetual states of half-completion. Because making solid arguments is hard there will be very few of them. I suspect arguments about which citations are legitimate will become very heavily recursive. Especially so on issues where academia’s ideological slates come into play.
I’ve thought up perhaps four or five similar systems, but none of which I’ve actually gone out and tested for effectiveness at coming to correct conclusions about the world. It is easy to generate a way of organizing information, but it needs to be thoroughly tested for effectiveness before it is actually implemented.
In this case effectiveness would mean
production of solid arguments in important areas
be fun to play
maybe actually change someone’s mind every now and then
low-difficulty of use/simple to navigate
A word tabooing feature would be helpful: http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/ (The entire Map and Territory, How to Actually Change Your Mind, and A Human’s Guide To Words sequences would be things I’d consider vital information for making such a site)
It may be useful for users to see their positions on particular topics change over time. What do they agree with now and before? What changed their mind?
I hope that helped spark some thoughts. Good luck!
How culture war stuff is dealt with on the various discord servers is having a place to dump it all. This is often hidden to begin with and opt-in only, so people only become aware of it when they start trying to discuss it.