The critical failure of the Sequences is that they didn’t teach humility; the lesson you -should- come away from them with is the idea that, however much Less Wrong you’ve become, you’re still deeply, deeply wrong.
Mmm. I typically dislike framings where A teaches B, instead of framings where B learns from A.
The Sequences certainly tried to teach humility, and some of us learned humility from The Sequences. I mean, it’s right there in the name that one is trying to asymptotically remove wrongness.
The main failing, if you want to put it that way, is that this is an online text and discussion forum, rather than a dojo. Eliezer doesn’t give people gold stars that say “yep, you got the humility part down,” and unsurprisingly people are not as good at determining that themselves as they’d like to be.
Mmm. I typically dislike framings where A teaches B, instead of framings where B learns from A.
Then perhaps you’ve framed the problem you’re trying to solve in this thread wrong. [ETA: Whoops. Thought I was talking to Villiam. This makes less-than-sense directed to you.]
The Sequences certainly tried to teach humility, and some of us learned humility from The Sequences. I mean, it’s right there in the name that one is trying to asymptotically remove wrongness.
I don’t think that humility can be taught in this sense, only earned through making crucial mistakes, over and over again. Eliezer learned humility through making mistakes, mistakes he learned from; the practice of teaching rationality is the practice of having students skip those mistakes.
The main failing, if you want to put it that way, is that this is an online text and discussion forum, rather than a dojo. Eliezer doesn’t give people gold stars that say “yep, you got the humility part down,” and unsurprisingly people are not as good at determining that themselves as they’d like to be.
Then perhaps you’ve framed the problem you’re trying to solve in this thread wrong.
Oh, I definitely agree with you that trying to teach rationality to others to fix them, instead of providing a resource for interested people to learn rationality, is deeply mistaken. Where I disagree with you is the (implicit?) claim that the Sequences were written to teach instead of being a resource for learning.
I don’t think that humility can be taught in this sense, only earned through making crucial mistakes, over and over again.
Mmm. I favor Bismarck on this front. It certainly helps if the mistakes are yours, but they don’t have to be. I also think it helps to emphasize the possibility of learning sooner rather than later; to abort mistakes as soon as they’re noticed, rather than when it’s no longer possible to maintain them.
Ah! My apologies. Thought I was talking to Villiam. My responses may have made less than perfect sense.
I favor Bismarck on this front. It certainly helps if the mistakes are yours, but they don’t have to be.
You can learn from mistakes, but you don’t learn what it feels like to make mistakes (which is to say, exactly the same as making the right decision).
I also think it helps to emphasize the possibility of learning sooner rather than later; to abort mistakes as soon as they’re noticed, rather than when it’s no longer possible to maintain them.
That’s where humility is important, and where the experience of having made mistakes helps. Making mistakes doesn’t feel any different from not making mistakes. There’s a sense that I wouldn’t make that mistake, once warned about it—and thinking you won’t make a mistake is itself a mistake, quite obviously. Less obviously, thinking you will make mistakes, but that you’ll necessarily notice them, is also a mistake.
Mmm. I typically dislike framings where A teaches B, instead of framings where B learns from A.
The Sequences certainly tried to teach humility, and some of us learned humility from The Sequences. I mean, it’s right there in the name that one is trying to asymptotically remove wrongness.
The main failing, if you want to put it that way, is that this is an online text and discussion forum, rather than a dojo. Eliezer doesn’t give people gold stars that say “yep, you got the humility part down,” and unsurprisingly people are not as good at determining that themselves as they’d like to be.
Then perhaps you’ve framed the problem you’re trying to solve in this thread wrong. [ETA: Whoops. Thought I was talking to Villiam. This makes less-than-sense directed to you.]
I don’t think that humility can be taught in this sense, only earned through making crucial mistakes, over and over again. Eliezer learned humility through making mistakes, mistakes he learned from; the practice of teaching rationality is the practice of having students skip those mistakes.
He shouldn’t, even if he could.
Oh, I definitely agree with you that trying to teach rationality to others to fix them, instead of providing a resource for interested people to learn rationality, is deeply mistaken. Where I disagree with you is the (implicit?) claim that the Sequences were written to teach instead of being a resource for learning.
Mmm. I favor Bismarck on this front. It certainly helps if the mistakes are yours, but they don’t have to be. I also think it helps to emphasize the possibility of learning sooner rather than later; to abort mistakes as soon as they’re noticed, rather than when it’s no longer possible to maintain them.
Ah! My apologies. Thought I was talking to Villiam. My responses may have made less than perfect sense.
You can learn from mistakes, but you don’t learn what it feels like to make mistakes (which is to say, exactly the same as making the right decision).
That’s where humility is important, and where the experience of having made mistakes helps. Making mistakes doesn’t feel any different from not making mistakes. There’s a sense that I wouldn’t make that mistake, once warned about it—and thinking you won’t make a mistake is itself a mistake, quite obviously. Less obviously, thinking you will make mistakes, but that you’ll necessarily notice them, is also a mistake.