I do a lot of interviewing candidates for jobs, and it’s essential to be aware of both those concepts. In working on our hiring process, we discuss both concepts, in words very similar to yours.
I’ve heard occasional complaints about certain things we do in our interviews, of the form “what does X have to do with being a good Y?!”. These complaints invariably come from people who didn’t get offers, and give me a warm glow at having made the correct decision.
Raise them many-worlds.
The phraseology “raise them X” suggests to me inculcating deep, emotional, childhood-locked belief in X. The only X for which that seems supportable is rationality itself.
Occasionally, well-respected community members could say things that are intentionally false, but persuasive and subtle, a la http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/02/my-favorite-lia.html.
You get points for catching these mistakes. Perhaps you submit your busts privately to some arbiter so others have the same challenge.
Later, the error is revealed and discussed.
This would also have the benefit of causing everyone to read the most-respected members’ writings ultra-critically, rather than sitting back and being spoon-fed.
One key thing this idea has is short term feedback. Frequent, rapid feedback is essential for getting good at this kind of thing. (IMO that’s why economics is still so useless relative to the other sciences: the experiments take fifty years to run.)
It’s much more than peer pressure. Eliezer, along with the other authors, use a confident, rhythmic, almost biblical style, which is very entertaining and compelling. You don’t just learn deep things with EY, you feel like you’re learning deep things. Robin Hanson’s thought is incredibly deep, but his style is much more open, and I would guess you find his writings not to have this property.
Robin and Eliezer have debated writing style over at OB, and I highly recommend you read that debate, Patrick.
You should also, in my opinion, be very cautious about this feeling; there’s a reason that religious writings have this style, and I would bet you would be less able to find logical gaps in something written in this style. I had a similar set of experiences as an adolescent Randian.
To be clear, my comment above isn’t meant to be a “charge”! Among other things, Eliezer is exceptionally gifted at making ideas interesting and accessible in a way that Robin isn’t at all. I’m looking forward to his book coming out and changing the world.
I personally love his stuff, and think it’s great 1) for people that are completely new to these ideas; 2) for people that are fairly advanced and have the ideas deep in their bones.
For people in between, I sometimes feel like his writing presents too much of a glide path—answers too many questions for the student, guides the reader too unerringly to the answers, presents a polished surface that makes it hard for inexperienced learners to understand the components of the thought process and learn to do the same themselves.
I can’t get the html links to work; can someone help?
fixed
Rereading some of those old posts it’s fascinating to see how much Eliezer’s writing has sharpened from then to now!
That link doesn’t work due to the angle brackets.
That assumes beginners know what they know, which strikes me as a poor assumption.
Modeling terrorists as trying to kill as many people as possible strikes me as insufficient. In Terror and Consent, Philip Bobbitt models their aims as propagandistic, which feels more like the right angle—hence the focus on inefficient but spectacular killing.
The fear and hatred of gambling. Contra Tyler Cowen, betting your beliefs is one of the best paths to both individual and group rationality. You should be doing it twice a day, like brushing your teeth. The beliefs that don’t get bet get cavities and rot; the beliefs that are unbettable create unbreakable deadlocks that later require ophtalmological intervention. Bet!
Hm. I’m far from an expert, and it could well be that there are ten times as many anonymous attacks, but off the top of my head I think of WTC ’93, the Millenium plot, 9/11, London trains, Madrid trains, Israel suicide bombings, Munich massacre, Iraq beheadings, USS Cole, bombings of US embassies.
Not off the top of my head: Golden Mosque bombing, Tamil Tigers numerous bombings, IRA-related terrorism, etc. Scanning through this I find many more terrorist attacks that were done with a clear political or propaganda purpose.
This post feels out of accord with the Virtues. It feels like a debate brief against religion rather than a curious, light, humble, empirical exploration. “On the wrong side of every moral issue in American history”? “Denying the government billions in tax revenue”? This doesn’t strike me as the talk of a truthseeker; rather, a polemicist.
Religion is true (vague, but you know what I mean I hope) with a very low odds ratio, perhaps 1-to-100k against? In any case way down in the hazy low probability region where the intuition has a hard time. Call it evidence of −70 to −40 decibels.
Religion net helps the total utility of humans in the present day with a still adverse but much higher odds ratio. I would be reluctant to go as far as −15 decibels.
It seems to me that you are conflating the two numbers.
Your first point about the claim of privacy is good, though.
I’d like to understand the precise arguments so that I can understand the limits, so that I can think about Robin and Eliezer’s disagreement, so I can get intuition for the Hanson/Cowen statement that “A more detailed analysis says not only that people must ultimately agree, but also that the discussion path of their alternating expressed opinions must follow a random walk.” I’m guessing that past the terminology it’s not actually that complicated, but I haven’t been able to find the four hours to understand all the terminology and structure.
Thanks; I had forgotten about that post.
No idea the extent to which EY’s approval upped this, but what I can say is that I was less than half through the post before I jumped to the bottom, voted Up, and looked for any other way to indicate approval.
It’s immediately surprising, interesting, obvious-in-retrospect-only, and most importantly, relevant to everyday life. Superb.