slicko

Karma: 71

slicko 8 Nov 2014 23:09 UTC
1 point
on: Welcome to Less Wrong! (6th thread, July 2013)
Hello all!

I’ve only just registered on the lesswrong site, but I’ve been lurking on here for a while. The main reason as to why I finally decided to sign up is that I’ve been going more frequently to the Toronto meetup sessions and have found that there’s tremendous value in thrusting myself into topics/discussions even when I’m not very well-read or knowledgeable on the topics before hand.

By merely listening in and pondering some questions I become more and more interested in the topic, catch some concepts by mere osmosis, and get interested to do further research on my own afterwards. So far that seems to work well and I’m certainly more knowledgeable than when I started.

So, following the same mentality, I thought that I should sign up and try to comment on some of the topics posted on here as a way to immerse myself further.

As for background: I’m a computer science grad with almost 10 years experience now. I like to read about psychology and to constantly learn new things. I’m interested in programming and intellectual discussions, artificial intelligence, winning at life …etc.

I hope that’s sufficient for an introductory comment! See you all around the site sometime.

slicko 1 Jan 2015 3:32 UTC
2 points
on: Breaking the vicious cycle
As a somewhat recent follower of LW (less than 1 year), it was actually quite useful to sift through your critiques back then (while occasionally they felt a bit personal and unnecessarily emotionally-motivated, I still valued the gist of the content—they were refreshingly contrarian).

Basically, when I first stumbled upon LW, I was excited, awed, and to some extent hypnotized.

The content was an interesting mixture of mathematics, computer science, philosophy and cognitive science, and as a new reader, I found myself easily convinced of many of the main positions advocated. I’m typically skeptical of any extraordinary claims, but the way the content is generally presented here, seemingly scientific and authoritative, evaded my usual defenses.

After a few weeks of taking in a lot of this content, I googled LW and Eliezer to find out more, and stumbled upon some criticisms, as well as your blog, the RationalWiki, ..etc.

Yes, it was interesting to hear about the basilisk, and the apparent knee-jerk reaction of Eliezer, and the ensuing censorship. That exercise helped restore my usual (and useful) skepticism, and consequently I re-examined a lot of the claims and positions with a more careful eye.

I also remember checking out your user profile here on LW, and seeing that you are an active member of the community, and that even though you and others occasionally engaged in some of these heated debates, the fact that one of LW’s more vocal critics was not banned or censored was also useful information that I gleaned from this exercise.

As a consumer of your critiques, I was enlightened but not turned-off from LW. In other words, I still somewhat drink the kool-aid, but I carefully check the drink before each sip.

So, thanks for providing a different perspective, and humanizing LW and its contributors, and good luck with your health and future endeavors.

slicko 7 Feb 2015 1:39 UTC
3 points
in reply to: Richard Korzekwa ’s comment on: Stupid Questions February 2015
I used to have the same problems, but I solved it with a Beeminder goal of doing 10 minutes of cleaning per day (6 days a week).

Even with very little money on the line ($0 or 5$), I still had enough incentive to actually punch in 10 minutes on the microwave timer and turn into a Tasmanian Cleaning Devil until I heard the ding!!

I feel strangely accomplished afterwards (both for having the discipline to fulfill my commitment on Beeminder and for having an orderly house). I was and still am able to maintain extraordinary levels of cleanliness ever since!

slicko 28 Feb 2015 4:49 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: Innate Mathematical Ability
What code or syntax is this?

slicko 28 Feb 2015 4:54 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Mirzhan_Irkegulov’s comment on: Innate Mathematical Ability
I had the same reaction to calling it “fancy”.

I got the answer fairly quick (didn’t time it, but probably about a minute or two). In my head, I was thinking of subtraction, not even “cancelling out”.

In a row, cell 1 minus cell 2 equaled cell 3.

I suppose that is an XOR pattern after all, but you only need knowledge of basic arithmetic to verbalize the pattern.

(edit: upon rereading my answer, I guess it’s not fair to call it a subtraction only, since I’m still keeping around shapes from cell 1 or cell 2 provided they weren’t subtracted. Apparently my brain is doing XOR while thinking of it as a subtraction)

slicko 28 Feb 2015 5:10 UTC
1 point
in reply to: JonahS’s comment on: Innate Mathematical Ability
I got the answer in under 2 minutes (didn’t time it exactly). However, when I first identified my answer candidate (answer 2), it was probably about two thirds of the way in. I got the correct answer by going across at first, but then spent additional time double checking my work using columns, and then double checking my answer before “committing”.

I’ve taken a couple of online Raven’s Matrices type tests in the past, but that was a while ago, so I don’t believe memory played too much of a role. However, I seem to have internalized the idea that IQ tests are trying to bait you with obvious answers, and as a result, I end up taking too long double checking my work.

I suppose the only way to get over this lack of confidence in my intuition is with practice, but I’m wary of diluting the feedback I get from the occasional IQ test due to the ‘practice effect’.

It’s a bit of a catch-22. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

slicko 28 Feb 2015 5:47 UTC
7 points
on: Innate Mathematical Ability
One thing that kept nagging at me while reading this post is my own experience with taking the SAT’s back in grade 11.

I don’t remember my score exactly on the verbal section, but it was something like 590. Now, I’ve always had a noticeably above average command of language and verbal reasoning in my native tongue (based on academic feedback + my own observations), but this is obviously not reflected in the above score.

However, this is explained in my case by the fact that I only really began learning English in grade 10 (I only knew basic words from being raised in a foreign schooling system, but suddenly switched to an all English schooling system in grade 10).

I distinctly remember, during the SAT test, thinking that questions where I actually knew the vocabulary involved (whether in the question itself, the choice answers, or both) were quite enjoyable and “easy”, for lack of a better word. However, I also distinctly remember staring at many questions where the vocabulary was completely unknown to me (after only 2 years of studying full-time in English); those questions I left blank or took a random guess (when I had any inkling, no matter how weak).

So, having said that, I believe it’s quite reasonable to assume that TT’s outstanding performance on the SAT math section at such a young age is largely attributable to the fact that math is logical and can be derived from first principles given enough intelligence. However, the ability to perform equally well on the verbal section is highly dependent on the amount of vocabulary you have accumulated up to that point (which is significantly limited when you’re a mere 10-year old and haven’t had to go through another 7+ years of formal education and self-learning).

To put it more concisely, I believe the SAT’s verbal section depends significantly on the crystallized intelligence aspect (in the form of accumulated vocabulary), whereas the math section can be conquered with sufficiently high fluid intelligence alone.

slicko 28 Feb 2015 21:53 UTC
1 point
in reply to: JonahS’s comment on: Innate Mathematical Ability
The replies to my query suggest a bit of concern that I’m be placing too much value on IQ tests, which to be honest is not quite true. I’ve never actually taken a formal IQ test and don’t actually know my IQ score. It’s really not a big concern to me, though I do believe I’m smarter than average, but then again, most people think that too.

However, to answer your question,it’s just my personality—I like to optimize stuff. It doesn’t matter what it is, if I recognize that there’s a slightly more efficient way to do something, I want to learn it and do it better. It can be as simple as someone throwing a crumbled paper into a recycling bin from a few feet away, if I notice someone is able to do that slightly more efficiently than the way I’m doing it and with better results, then I get really curious and determined to figure out how to optimize my own shots.

So, along that same thread, I noticed inefficiencies in my IQ test taking skills (as I outlined in my original question), which prompted me to query you guys for any tips for improvement.

And in response to shminux and Ilya’s concerns, this personality trait of mine is actually quite healthy and a valued asset, it’s the reason why I did well academically and am doing well in my career, so nothing to worry about!

slicko 28 Feb 2015 21:58 UTC
0 points
in reply to: shminux’s comment on: Innate Mathematical Ability
See my response to JonahSinick below

slicko 28 Feb 2015 22:13 UTC
0 points
in reply to: gjm’s comment on: Innate Mathematical Ability
I agree with your overall response, but your note that “weird-looking notation intimidates you” kind of surprised me.

From my perspective, it’s not a question of intimidation so much as it is a recognition that the question is targeting a different audience (one who knows such notation).

If you encounter new notation, there is no way to derive the answer anyway by simply “facing” it head on (i.e. without being intimidated), you actually have to look up the notation and any associated information you didn’t already know, which requires a higher activation energy (and enthusiasm) than trying your hand at a question with known notation.

slicko 28 Feb 2015 22:22 UTC
0 points
in reply to: IlyaShpitser’s comment on: Innate Mathematical Ability
I’m reminded of Graham’s number (g notation) as an example where new notation (kind of) was invented for the purposes of a math paper.

I read a riveting blog post a few months ago introducing several concepts and building up to graham’s number in a very accessible read if anyone’s interested:

http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/11/1000000-grahams-number.html

slicko 28 Feb 2015 22:28 UTC
1 point
in reply to: JonahS’s comment on: Innate Mathematical Ability
I appreciate your response, but I think you’re forgetting my original question.

I got the answer in under 2 minutes (didn’t time it exactly). However, when I first identified my answer candidate (answer 2), it was probably about two thirds of the way in. I got the correct answer by going across at first, but then spent additional time double checking my work using columns, and then double checking my answer before “committing”.

I got the answer correctly and in under 2 minutes. I saw the pattern relatively effortlessly, but was only inquiring as to how to optimize the speed by fixing my “hesitation” to commit to the answer until I’ve double-checked it and ruled out any bait answers as well.

slicko 1 Mar 2015 0:30 UTC
4 points
in reply to: Nornagest’s comment on: Innate Mathematical Ability
Not buying anything, just trying to satisfy my desire to optimize any skill I have (Raven’s matrices, crumbled paper basketball, driving, how to hold a pen, or any other skill).

See my previous answers to JonahSinick for more details.

slicko 13 Mar 2015 18:47 UTC
11 points
on: Rationality: From AI to Zombies
Good work guys!

This might be the excuse I need to finally go through the complete sequences as opposed to relying on cherry-picking posts whenever I encounter a reference I don’t already know.

slicko 13 Mar 2015 18:58 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Salemicus’s comment on: Rationality Quotes Thread March 2015
Luckily you only have to make fewer mistakes than your opponent to win.

slicko 20 Mar 2015 3:22 UTC
2 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Rationality Quotes Thread March 2015
My first downvote, yay! Didn’t feel that bad :)

Anyway, my comment was merely an attempt to allay the philosophical worries expressed in the parent quote and so I used the same terms; it wasn’t meant as pedagogy.

slicko 21 Nov 2020 5:00 UTC
4 points
on: Hiding Complexity
Intuitively, this feels accurate to me (at least for a certain category of problems—those that are solvable with divide and conquer strategies).
I’ve always viewed most software best-practices (e.g. modularity, loose-coupling, SOLID principles) as techniques for “managing complexity”.
Programming is hard to begin with, and programming large systems is even harder. If the code you’re looking at is thousands of lines of code in a single file with no apparent structure, then it’s extremely hard to reason about. That’s why we have “methods”, a mechanism to mentally tuck away pieces of related functionality and abstract them into just a method name. Then, when that wasn’t enough, we came up with classes, namespaces, projects, microservices ..etc.
Also, I agree that a good amount of learning works this way. I would even point to “teaching” as another example of this. Teaching someone a complex topic often involves deciding what “levels” of understanding are at play, and what subproblems can be abstracted away at each level until the learner masters the current level. This works both when you teach someone in a top-down fashion (you’re doing the division of problems for them and helping them learn the subsolutions, recursively), or a bottom-up fashion (you teach them a particular low-level solution, then name the subproblem you’ve just solved, zoom out, and repeat).