I don’t think that contradicts my original statement strongly. The statement is itself a hypothesis, but I wrote it down because I find it likely that it describes behavior. However, I don’t have a strong degree of confidence about it.
Some comments may not be in the worldview / belief category, and in this case it may be the case that the people I hypothesized about may just neither upvote nor downvote. It is also possible that in this case voting on posts or comments may be motivated by different things.
Maybe worldview is a word that comes along with too many associations? What about “prior belief”?
There may be a certain risk that downvoting culture replaces “comment and discussion” culture (at least at the margins). A reason for that may be that there is no clear idea of what a downvote (or an upvote) actually means, such that possibly some people just upvote if the content of a comment / post confirms their worldview (and vice versa).
Maybe this overview over some career paths in German politics is helpful: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/7FqszSxJ6NHBcZ7nW/report-on-careers-in-politics-and-policy-in-germany
You made interesting points. In particular, I did not know about the Cult checklist, which is really interesting. I’d be interested in your evaluation of LW based on that list.
I also like that you really engage with the points made in the comment. Moreover, I agree that posting a comment even though you can predict that it will not be well-received is something that should be encouraged, given that you are convinced of the comment’s value.
However, I think you are interpreting unfairly much into the comment at one point: “Are you OK? A hypothesis here is that you might be having a bad time :-(” seems a bit out of place, because it seems to suggests that speculating about alleged motivations is helpful.
“Karma is a strong correlate of quality (whether or not the bounty is paid out is not strictly contingent on the karma it gets, but is influenced by it).Importantly, quality is not the automatic result of effort. Someone could expend a lot of effort writing an extremely long and detailed review that no one wants to read because it’s tedious or because the English is grating. ”
“Karma is a strong correlate of quality (whether or not the bounty is paid out is not strictly contingent on the karma it gets, but is influenced by it).
Importantly, quality is not the automatic result of effort. Someone could expend a lot of effort writing an extremely long and detailed review that no one wants to read because it’s tedious or because the English is grating. ”
Before anyone gets sad:
While Karma is certainly a useful measure for the probability that a book review will be seen as rewardworthy by the LW team, nobody really knows how strongly it correlates with “quality” as defined by what non-LW readers would see as high-quality. Saying that “Karma is a strong correlate of quality” is not an objective description, but a belief.
Unreadable book reviews would probably be seen as having low quality both on LW and on goodreads or other review sites. Readability is only one factor leading to more Karma points, however, and I assume that obvious things like topical fit with things the typical LW reader likes and less obvious things like being close to the center of the social network of LW will lead to higher Karma points. Therefore, we could say that Karma measures quality in the same sense that IQ measures intelligence: It would then just measure what it’s defined to measure, so the word “quality” could just as well stand for “Karma points” without mixing words and associations. The correlation betwee Karma points and quality in this sense then is 1.
Slightly, but only slightly off-topic:
How does the “most relevant” ranking on https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/book-reviews work?
When I change to a different sorting there, the “load more” link disappears.
5. You may review a book that was already reviewed on LessWrong (or SlateStarCodex/ACX), however your review must add significant value beyond the existing review(s).”
I assume you put that as a comment my shortform by accident? Or am I misunderstanding something?
Anyway, maybe you mean this: https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/07/the-us-navys-ships-are-getting-old-they-might-be-getting-a-lot-older/
Shouldn’t it be the other way round?
Seeing a blog post from 2019 that called UK and Australia fascistic because Melatonin is a prescription medicine makes me update slightly in the direction that discourse norms in the ea/lw communities did not decline due to corona as much as I had thought.
Here is another study on viral load:
“A recent study has even suggested that respiratory samples from people infected with the Delta variant can harbor up to 1000 times higher viral loads compared to samples with variants that are more closely related to the original Wuhan strain, although the sample size of this study was very limited. Here, we have compared the viral load in 16,185 samples that were obtained during which non-VOC, the Alpha (B.1.1.7) or Delta variant (B.1.617.2) were dominant as evidenced by genomic surveillance. We found that the Delta variant contained about 4-fold higher viral loads compared to the non-VOC or Alpha variants.”
But also see the comment there.
That seems like an interesting approach that may potentially make good use of personal energy.
Very interesting, thanks.
Having put some thoughts into the 80,000 hours career planning document, I think it is time for the next “some weeks of thinking” projects.
Either it’s gonna be similar planning processes:
the life of my kids, 20 years in the future
where should I spend the next 5 years? And where the next 20?
a plan for personal finances
a health plan
a sports plan
whom to spend time with
Or it’s gonna be concrete learning projects:
python or r
(Some of them more like refreshers)
Your thoughts are appreciated.
I am not sure I exactly understand whst that says. Something like “parenting choices are only important if they are really bad”?
Thanks. Which evidence for upbringing do you mean in this case? I don’t doubt that everybody is in some sense is “biodetermined”, but it’s ironic that the podcast episode then mainly talks about certain formative experiences the two who talk had when they met each other in highschool, and how Rob was influenced by his mother and his father als role models.
It’s funny that in the interview episode “Rob Wiblin on how he ended up the way he is” of the 80,000 hours podcast, Misha Saul says that parents don’t have much of an influence on the development of their own children (biodeterminism), but at the same time the whole interview is about important, formative experiences.
I really like this review.