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 :)
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 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.
Claim: this thread would be better (although, it’s already great) if people added confidence levels to their claims at the beginning, and updated them at the end of the discussion. (confidence level − 75%)
correlation between improved-decision-making-skills, and moving from being 16 to 18 years old, seems somewhat weak and certainly not as strong as other predictors (education, self-reflection, IQ, etc.). also, it bears asking, why these certain ages—if 16 then why not 15? and if not 16, then why stay on 18 and not move to 19? cause AFAIK, the brain (frontal cortex) stops developing at age 24-25.
I grew up in a democratic school, my experience was that kids were far better at making decisions than the general population gave them credit for. and that it depended more on factors other than age.
anyone who says we should not lower the voting age for reasons of decreased decision making skills, should really ask himself why age based restrictions are OK, and other interventions that are sometimes suggested aren’t (like passing certain tests).
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 will say that i didn’t continue reading after the first section (for the reasons specified in it), but it was an awesome introduction!
you made me think of a feature i think can be great, that when someone gives a down-vote to a post the site automatically prompts him to comment. another idea is that you’ll only be able to make a strong down-vote if you comment, but I’m not to sure about that.
As someone new to the community i can testify that i probably would have had more motivation to write if i gotten more comments and discussion. especially since, at least for me, the things i think to publish aren’t necessarily very polished ideas, but things i would like to get input on.
New to the forum, found it through effective altruism, but began reading and participating or a different reason. there was a topic i want to challenge my beliefs about, and research further then what was already done (relatively little).
Up to now, I’ve read the first 2 books of “rationality: from A to Z”, and randomly read around the site, loving it :)
(If you have any article suggestions for me it would be awesome)
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.