I’d like to hear what people think about calibrating how many ideas you voice versus how confident you are in their accuracy.
For lack of a better example, i recall eliezer saying that new open threads should be made quadanually, once per season, but this doesn’t appear to be the optimum amount. Perhaps eliezer misjudged how much activity they would receive and how fast they would fill up or he has a different opinion on how full a thread has to be to make it time for a new thread, but for sake of the example lets assume that eliezer was wrong and that the current one or two threads per month is better than quadanually. Should eliezer have recalibrated his confidence on this and never said it because its chance of being right was too low or would lowering his confidence on ideas be counter productive and is it optimal for people to have confidence in the ideas that they voice even it causes them to say some things which aren’t right.
I suppose this is of importance to me because I think I might be better off if i lowered how judgemental i am of people who say things which are wrong and also lowered how judgemental i am of the ideas i have because i might be putting too much weight on people voicing ideas which are wrong.
Is there a consistent path for what LW wants to be?
a) rationalist site filled up with meta topics and examples
b) a) + detailed treats of some important topics
c) open to everything as long as reason is used
and so on.
I personally like and profit from the discussing of akrasia methods. But it might be detrimental to the main target of the site.
Also I would very much like to see a cannon develop for knowledge that LWers generally agree upon including, but not limited to the topics I currently care about myself.
Voicing ideas depends on where you are. In social settings I more and more advice against it. Arguing/discussing is just not helpful. And if you are filled up with weird ideas then you get kicked out, which might be bad for other goals you have.
It would be great to have a place for any idea to be examined for right and wrong.
What does Fallacyzilla have on its chest? It looks like it has “A → B, ~B, therefore ~A” But that is valid logic. Am I misreading it or did you mean to put “A → B, ~A, therefore ~B”? That would be actually wrong.
I noticed that two seconds after I put it up and it’s now corrected...er...incorrected. (Today I learned—my brain has that same annoying auto-correct function as Microsoft Word)
I’d like to hear what people think about calibrating how many ideas you voice versus how confident you are in their accuracy.
For lack of a better example, i recall eliezer saying that new open threads should be made quadanually, once per season, but this doesn’t appear to be the optimum amount. Perhaps eliezer misjudged how much activity they would receive and how fast they would fill up or he has a different opinion on how full a thread has to be to make it time for a new thread, but for sake of the example lets assume that eliezer was wrong and that the current one or two threads per month is better than quadanually. Should eliezer have recalibrated his confidence on this and never said it because its chance of being right was too low or would lowering his confidence on ideas be counter productive and is it optimal for people to have confidence in the ideas that they voice even it causes them to say some things which aren’t right.
I suppose this is of importance to me because I think I might be better off if i lowered how judgemental i am of people who say things which are wrong and also lowered how judgemental i am of the ideas i have because i might be putting too much weight on people voicing ideas which are wrong.
Being right on group effects is difficult.
Is there a consistent path for what LW wants to be? a) rationalist site filled up with meta topics and examples b) a) + detailed treats of some important topics c) open to everything as long as reason is used
and so on. I personally like and profit from the discussing of akrasia methods. But it might be detrimental to the main target of the site. Also I would very much like to see a cannon develop for knowledge that LWers generally agree upon including, but not limited to the topics I currently care about myself.
Voicing ideas depends on where you are. In social settings I more and more advice against it. Arguing/discussing is just not helpful. And if you are filled up with weird ideas then you get kicked out, which might be bad for other goals you have.
It would be great to have a place for any idea to be examined for right and wrong.
LW is working on it, and you can help!
I’d like to see a picture of this LW cannon!
Rather than waste time doing both your cannon request and Roko’s Fallacyzilla request, I just combined them into one picture of the Less Wrong Cannon attacking Fallacyzilla.
...now someone take Photoshop away from me, please.
What does Fallacyzilla have on its chest? It looks like it has “A → B, ~B, therefore ~A” But that is valid logic. Am I misreading it or did you mean to put “A → B, ~A, therefore ~B”? That would be actually wrong.
I noticed that two seconds after I put it up and it’s now corrected...er...incorrected. (Today I learned—my brain has that same annoying auto-correct function as Microsoft Word)
There’s a related XKCD. The mouse-over text is especially relevant.
To whoever downvoted the parent: please refrain from downvoting people who draw attention to other’s mistakes in a gentle and humorous way.