manifold.markets/Sinclair
Sinclair Chen
Karma: 543
They could either become depressed, become more okay with social games, or hold some more nuanced view—like some social games are good but not all.
Without looking it up:
My first impression is that the bank pays off the original homeowner in full, which they are willing to do because I pay back the bank over time with interest, or else they take my house. Is the real answer that they are middlemen who sell the right to foreclose my house to investors?
Edit: I asked my mom, who’s a landlord, and in America the buyer borrows money from the bank (via a mortgage) and pays an escrow company, which pays off any liens (debts tied to the property that the original owner failed to pay such as unpaid property taxes or repair costs) and then pays the original owner the remaining. Unless the owner owed $3 million in liens and the house sold for $2 million, in which case the owner would owe the escrow company $1 million instead of getting paid. This way the house buyer buys just the house without worrying about liens. A bank makes sure a homebuyer is trustworthy before lending them money; an escrow company makes sure that the seller actually owns the house and that all their liens are accounted for.
On the other hand, if you buy a foreclosed house at auction then you are in charge of paying the liens as well, kind of like how when you buy a business, any debt the business owed comes with it.
Ten uses for goal factoring that I personally would not normally consider:
1. When I’m craving a certain food or just hungry in general, I could break it up into flavors, textures, and nutrients I desire and cook up something new that fits exactly what I want
2. For shopping lists
3. For choosing what items to keep or discard when decluttering
4. Create a business plan by having some target users goal factor their problem
5. Goal factor my relationship with someone I’m close to and have them do the same, then share the results with each other.
6. Political cause prioritization.
7. Goal factor X so I can write a poem about X
8. To make my dating website profiles more honest
9. To choose which friends to hang out with more
10. To see whether I truly understand my friend’s hard situation, I could put myself in their shoes and imagine them going through the goal factoring process for the hard problem they’re dealing with. After getting what I think are their motivations, tell them.
I have a few unconnected thoughts. A disjoint reply to a disjoint post:
“The first virtue is curiosity.” A lot of these experiences are seeing with fresh eyes.
This reminds me of mindfulness meditation.
This reminds me of The Life Changing Magic of Tidying Up, a book about being friends with household objects.
Children play to learn things. Maybe adults should too.
A few weeks ago I was walking alone at night in the middle of a small street. On a whim I started to dance, but it just made me feel more alone. Even when I’ve been silly in the past, I was silly with friends. I doubt that I could ever think a thought to myself that will make me laugh as hard as the funniest things my friends have said to me or that I have said to them. Maybe I could play myself if I tried soft enough, but why should I when voice chat is a few clicks away? Maybe rationality can be playful, but why should it be solitary?
Did you really play alone if you tell another person what you did? You wanted to see if you could produce a certain kind of solitary experience—and then you shared the experience on the internet.
Interesting. I’ve never noticed that my phone camera is wayyy better than my laptop camera until I read this post and thought to make the comparison.
I wonder why you’re against using earbuds. I use a google pixel usb-c earbuds on my computer for video chats, and I’m able to hear my own voice when I speak. The microphone in it is not bad either.
This sounds a lot like what Kahneman calls “expert intuition” in Thinking Fast and Slow—it is picked up from prolonged practice in a regular environment with quick feedback. (Some examples in the book are playing speed chess at a high rank and firefighters that are able to tell a building is about to collapse a few seconds before it does, without being able to verbalize how they know). A cup stacking skill is expert intuition + “anyone can do it.”
I propose the name “Cycle Skill”
The skill comes from a tight feedback loop
The word “cycle” connotes repetition
Like riding a ’cycle
Once learned, it’s intuitive and very hard to unlearn
Anyone can do it
Rolls off the tongue
Con: doesn’t sound like its unintentionally learned
They could just coordinate to always mark the first patient as ill, but none of the others
More likely, they’ll converge on using easy heuristics for diagnoses, which ruins the purpose of seeing a doctor in the first place, since you could just use the heuristics yourself
Their challenge to rationalists is: if you’re so smart, why aren’t you happy?
Ok, but are postrats actually happy?
You mention postrats being able to coordinate a 400 person summer camp, once. Rats coordinate events about that big once or twice a year (solstice). Same with EA (EAG).
When I picture a social group created by people who churned from Rationality/EA because it wasn’t fun enough, I imagine:
- more parties per capita
- more families per capita
- more not-eating-alone per capita
- more group houses per capita
- more holidays
- understanding romance on a gears level to, like, get over your ex by taking OCD meds
- understanding sex on a gears level to, like, have more pleasurable sex
- bets
- writing good fiction
If not this, then do postrats succeed at anything just as impressive?
Of course, you can embed markets in comments as well!
this suggests also a category for posts that could have lost you good money in hindsight
github copilot is autocomplete on steroids and it’s only available on vscode
> the only punishments possible are a frown or a hand grenade
This is similar to the ultimatum game. Which implies that absent social coordination, a personal solution is for the victim to fine the the medium-transgressor a certain amount in damages, under threat of some probability of cancelling them, with a probability chosen such that the transgressor would be better off just paying the fine.
For anyone else who wants to bet on this, here’s a market on manifold:
I’ve also concluded that in-love epistemics are terrible from my own research. For instance, in this n=71 study where college students write about a time they’ve rejected a romantic confession and a time they were rejected:
- suitors report that rejectors are mysterious, but rejectors do not report being mysterious
- suitors severely overestimate probability of being liked back
- suitors report that rejections are very unclear, and while suitors report the same, it is to a much lesser degree/frequency.
I’ve also been overconfident of compatibility and of mutual affection in my own life (n=1)
However, I think there’s something to be said for having something (someone?) to protect.
Eliezer mentions in Inadequate Equillibria using extremely bright lights to solve his partner’s Seasonal Affective Disorder—which was not medical consensus, and only after Eliezer’s experiment are more “official” trials for this intervention being tested.
Or in my case, I was so heartbroken over a bad ex that I researched romance science, learned about the similarity between limerance and OCD, and tried a supplement that cured my heartbreak. I wouldn’t normally try new drugs nor browse google scholar, but I was really motivated.
Is this supposed to say ‘overestimate’?
Yes, corrected.what info from the paper is the claim based on?
I don’t remember (I copied the points from my notes from months ago when I did the research).
Inositol indeed.
I don’t know anyone else that’s tried this. I’d only bet 55-65% that it works for any given person. But it’s available over the counter and quite safe.
I should probably get around to setting up a more rigorous experiment one of these days...
I’ve changed the betting interface now to be easier to use, albeit with less information
(Engineer at Manifold here.) I largely agree! Letting people make markets on anything means that many people will make poorly operationalized markets. Subjective resolution is good for bets on personal events among friends, which is an important use case, but it bad for questions with an audience bigger than that.
We need to do a better job of:
1. resolution reliability, like by adding a reputation system or letting creators delegate resolution to more objective individuals / courts.
2. helping users turn their vague uncertainties into objective questions—crucial but less straightforward.
3. surfacing higher quality content
Hmm, now I’m starting to wonder if Satoshi is a rationalist