I would add that the claim that “on average it’s good for such people to be punished” shouldn’t be thrown around unless there’s actually some quantification that suggests it. it may be a strong argument if it had some backing, but it isn’t any good if it doesn’t.
Can your system express sets that have multiple parent sets?
Yup, that was the idea. a strict hierarchy wouldn’t be an accurate map of the communities landscape. I think you would probably get some really weird nesting in some places (especially if we’re talking about individual users), but as long as it works and is intuitive to the user, it’s fine.
I am not sure i understand your middle sentence, but if i did then the system i proposed allows it. can you explain again?
books added since the list was last updated -
On applied Bayesian statistics, Dr_Manhattan recommends Lambert’s A student’s guide to Bayesian Statistics over McEarlath’s Statistical Rethinking, Kruschke’s Doing Bayesian Data Analysis, and Gelman’s Bayesian Data Analysis.
On Functional Analysis, krnsll recommends Brezis’s Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations over Kreyszig’s and Lax’s.
On Probability Theory, crab recommends Feller’s An Introduction to Probability Theory over Jaynes’ Probability Theory: The Logic of Science and MIT OpenCoursewar’s Introduction to Probability and Statistics.
On History of Economics, Pablo_Stafforini recommends Sandmo’s Economics Evolving over Robbins’ A History of Economic Thought and Schumpeter’s chaotic History of Economic Analysis.
On Relativity, PeterDonis recommends Carroll’s Spacetime and Geometry over Taylor & Wheeler’s Spacetime Physics, Misner, Thorne, & Wheeler’s Gravitation, Wald’s General Relativity, and Hawking & Ellis’s The Large Scale Structure of Spacetime.
Can a strategy against blackmail be to reveal the information yourself?
If you don’t want to comply (pay), and you believe Alice will follow on her threat, can you minimize harm by being faster and revealing the information yourself?
You can also gain yourself some reputation by seeming honest, and to take away any status Alice might have gotten from exposing you. Alice can’t put you in a bad light for “stealing” it from her, cause then she admits to blackmail.
and lastly—who’s gonna try to blackmail someone who just makes it past them and publishes it themselves?
So “7 chunks” was used as almost a synonym for “7 words”? I thought that was some cool concept from neuroscience about working memory :)
What is meant by 7 chunks? seems like that in itself was condensed jargon that i didn’t understand :P
So, an action coordination website should be able to phrase actions in four words?
This idea seems interesting, i’d love to see it somehow more formulated.
Do shorter kickstarter descriptions get funded more?
Do protest events on Facebook which have a shorter description get more attendees?
It probably also depends on personality—if you want to coordinate people who are high in contentiousness, you may need more words. for low contentiousness, less words. and if you want both, than you need to give a clear 4-word heading, and a bunch of nuance below.
Sure, i agree with you. just not on the right scale/functionality for the MVP.
yup, pretty much nailed it :)
1. I’d love to see that. surely, it’s not probable that a funding campaign which uses google forms instead of KickStarter would be better off, right? i think we have concluded this line of thought—i’m skeptical, and you don’t see a reason why not.
Though, again, 150 people attending a LW meeting is far from the type of coordination this site will be for. i’m not blind to the fact we have better coordination tools than going door-to-door and talking to people—i say that the coordination tools we have today aren’t sufficient for more complicated coordination—where there are a lot of people involved, several types of actors, many incentives, etc...
2. maybe you’re right. still, it’s worth a try and a little effort :)
3. that wasn’t my reaction for doing an MVP, but reasoning for a platform being good, and saying that google forms isn’t a platform (more specifically, it isn’t a platform for coordinating action, but a more general platform, so it can’t be trusted as one)
Could you fund a video game with google forms? (assuming it has a PayPal widget, if needed)
There are three main problems i see with google forms.
First, i think it’ll be harder to get people on board, much harder to get many people on board, and much harder still to do it consistently.
Second, there’s probably a high value to a system that ensures (or at least makes it more probable) that someone who obligated to take an action actually took it. if you don’t have such a system, then whatever you did, you’re arguably almost in the starting same position. everyone might still be suspicious that no one else will take action, and so nobody will take it.
the third connects to the second, but may be different enough—A platform could gain trust. not only would i not fund a video game through google forms, i may not even want to fund it through certain kickstarter-like sites, cause i don’t trust them as i trust kickstarter.
That’s not getting into functionality that to me seems important.
yes, I agree that both of these are also large problems of coordination that aren’t solved by collective action. we will need to find ways to do all of these better.
Luckily i’m Israeli so i got that ;)
The post was very clear to understand, and the graphics were spot-on (would even be fine to leave just the graphic trees without the text trees).
I actually done something very similar to that a few days ago. I wrote down on a peace of paper a few things i knew are important to me, and than analyzed them—thought how do they relate to each other, what might be higher than them, and how might i break them down. than i also connected each breakdown to other higher level goals that could be benefited from achieving it.
After doing it i got to a conclusion that there are two shorter-term goals that are most beneficial for me right now.
This is basically a ‘technical’ explanation of the “start with the end in mind” principle, which i try to use often. hopefully you gave me another way to think about it which will be useful.
I haven’t said IE claimed that, but that “getting people to take an action simultaneously is a central problem that has to be solved”, and he does hint at a kickstarter-like site for coordination, so it’s not far fetched from the book.
pay attention that i did give examples of more complicated ‘contracts’ than “everybody takes action X”. the more the site evolves the more options it will have. but that still doesn’t reach project management level. it’s simple, but not too simple to not be useful.
of course there are ways for humans to cooperate at larger numbers than 150, or else we wouldn’t have modern society. or any society for that matter. I meant that it’s hard for humans to do it with some kinds of social structures. but it’s not so important, we can leave it aside (the important bit isn’t the number, but the notion that the more people, the more coordination gets difficult).
I think the minimum viable project is much more than google forms (no need to even bother if it doesn’t get better than Facebook and Twitter). and actually there is a similar site, but for me it also doesn’t reach minimum viable product. most of what i described in the post is what i think should part of the minimum viable product.
Well, i wrote this article with that premise without justifying it as it’s generally accepted on lesswrong. as i said, it’s based on problems from game theory that we know also happen many times in real life, and on yudkowsky’s book inadequate equilibria.
the structure of the site doesn’t require you to commit to results, but to actions. if we’re taking your example, then the bureaucrat commits to do certain actions (probably ones that are believed to be helpful in getting a permit), not on actually getting it.
but it’s not actually a good example for what this site would be about. it’s not about small groups or complex projects, but about simple actions taken by a lot of people. humans can coordinate effectively in groups of up to roughly 150 people, above that it doesn’t work as great. If you want to see better examples, look at this post.
But here a tailored example for you -
Say you have a organization with the goal of making the scientific process better, for most of your work (research, discussions, negotiating, surveys, etc) you don’t use this site. but when you want to implement the solutions you found, you find that it’s quite hard, there are many gears in the mechanism (researchers, grant-makers, journals...), and one won’t change with out the other changing too, at the same time. so you open a coordinated action on this website, something simple and not output-based, and people commit. if enough people committed, they all take the action at the same time. much less effort and strain, instead, you can smoother transitions.
Of course i can’t promise that it works that way, and i can’t quantify beforehand how beneficial it’ll be, but to me it seems promising.
Are there documentaries about effective altruism?