Better to use an archive link to not give them traffic
I think the main prediction/expectation error many rationalists (including me) made, was expecting countries to either do practically nothing and let the virus run through the population like a wildfire, or respond heavily in a way that stomp it out in a few months. in both cases life goes back to normal in a few weeks/months, and if you know that it will only be a few months then taking extreme measures in that time frame makes sense.
Alas, what actually happened was this weird middle ground where we never quite eradicate the virus nor let it run wild, which drew out the problem for a year+.
I wasn’t prepared for that, and my thinking was too short term, so i also ended up sacrificing too much.
I think deleting it was a fair response (though perhaps banning is a little over the top). assuming the moderator has no way of checking for himself whether this makes sense and he knows he doesn’t, he’s left with a bet about whether this is the real thing or just bullshit. he expects more bullshit than real things, and he expects the bullshit to be dangerous. so he removes everything that fits this class of things, knowing he might end up also removing something real.
Interestingly, i think the current coordination around the GameStop short squeeze can be explained with this framework.
If WallStreetBets tried to do this coordination with the goal of making money, they would probably fail. but this is not the stated goal. for many, the goal is one of entertainment, sticking it to the man, or other goals that are unrelated to making money. many even say they don’t care if they lose money on this because it’s not the point.
So in a way, they’re pretending to value the stock, and they’re coordinating to pretend.
I think the benefits in this case from having a non-monetary goal is that it changes the incentive structure. if the goal was to make money, then there would be much more incentive to defect and not everyone would be able to win. if the point is to bankrupt those who shorted these companies (or some other non-monetary goal), then everyone can “win” (even if they lose money) and it’s easier to coordinate.
I don’t know if it goes all the way to level 3, but i still find this an interesting connection.
books added since the list was last updated -
On applied Bayesian statistics, Dr_Manhattan recommends Lambert’s A student’s guide to Bayesian Statisticsover 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 Equationsover 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 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.
On Category Theory, adamShimi recommends Awodey’s Category Theory over Maclane’s category theory for the working mathematician.
On General Psycology, Jurij Fedorov recommends Larsen’s and Buss’ Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge about Human Nature
(if you add another book you can reply here with a link to your comment and I’ll add it )
I notice I’m confused
This is an awesome idea! i really love your parenting posts and I’m not even close to that stage in life, you’re doing something very much right :)
p.s—Somewhat related, when i was little i used to offer my mom bets all the time, but she was already used to losing bets with my older brothers so she never took any of them (i still find myself wanting to offer her bets sometimes, but she doesn’t see bets the same way rationalists do).
karma-change notifications are grouped into daily batches, so after you’ve checked it, you won’t be notified of any additional votes until the next day
I was worried in the first paragraph (for the same reasons you brought up), but was relaxed by the second :)
This followup has really built and added on the previous post and increased my confidence in it. Seeing the full picture, and from two perspectives, helps a lot to clarify what we’re looking at. Very exciting direction.
I agree metacognition describes something we do, but I don’t think it captures it as well as a Rationality does (I don’t like “rationalism” and kinda frown whenever people use it, though gladly it’s not used a lot).
When I hear “Metacognition” I think about “Thinking about thinking”, but in any particular way. Rationality to me is almost like saying “Rational Metacognition”, meaning it has a direction, it strives to be successful, to do well (and so on). It doesn’t give as much freedom as Metacognition in a way that I like.
Put another way, Metacognition sounds like a phenomenon or a category of phenomena, while rationality sounds like a technique, an approach or a philosophy.
I am familiar with worrying that talking about rationality would feel awkward or pretentious, but I think finding a good way to introduce it could go a long way to help before we consider changing the name. Perhaps something like “I’m a rationalist, which means I learn and think about how to think well, so I can apply these lesson and be more effective and make better decisions”
Anyway, upvoted for an interesting topic and a well made argument.