A couple notes based on our previous conversations (mainly the non-written conversation):
In our conversations, I think the central reason you expressed for thinking orcas might be super smart was their large brains, and you focused on that, so I somewhat focused on that.
I mentioned that there should be much more impressive behavior if they were that smart; I don’t recall us talking about that much, not sure.
I recommended that you try hard to invent hypotheses that would explain away the brain sizes.
(I’m kinda confused why your post here doesn’t mention that much; I guess implicitly the evidence about hunting defeats the otherwise fairly [strong according to you] evidence from brain size?)
I suggest that a bias you had was “not looking hard enough for defeaters”. But IDK, not at all confident, just a suggestion.
I mentioned that there should be much more impressive behavior if they were that smart...
A counterargument is that it takes culture to build cumulative knowledge to build wealth to create cognitive tools that work well enough to do obviously impressive things. And 50,000 individuals distributed globally isn’t enough to build that culture.
2. I mentioned that there should be much more impressive behavior if they were that smart; I don’t recall us talking about that much, not sure.
You said “why don’t they e.g. jump in prime numbers to communicate they are smart?” and i was like “hunter gatherer’s don’t know prime numbers and perhaps not even addition” and you were like “fair”.
I mean I thought about what I’d expect to see, but I unfortunately didn’t really imagine them as smart but just as having a lot of potential but being totally untrained.
3. I recommended that you try hard to invent hypotheses that would explain away the brain sizes.
(I’m kinda confused why your post here doesn’t mention that much; I guess implicitly the evidence about hunting defeats the otherwise fairly [strong according to you] evidence from brain size?)
I suggest that a bias you had was “not looking hard enough for defeaters”. But IDK, not at all confident, just a suggestion.
Yeah the first two points in the post are just very strong evidence that overpower my priors (where by priors i mean considerations from evolution and brain size, as opposed to behavior). Ryan’s point changed my priors, but I think it isn’t related enough to “Can I explain away their cortical neuron count?” that asking myself this question even harder would’ve helped.
Maybe I made a general mistake like “not looking hard enough for defeaters”, but it’s not that actionable yet. I did try to take all the available evidence and update properly on everything. But maybe some motivated stopping on not trying even longer to come up with a concrete example of what I’d have expected to see from orcas. It’s easier to say in retrospect though. Back then I didn’t know in what direction I might be biased.
But I guess I should vigilantly look out for warning signs like “not wanting to bother to think about something very carefully” or so. But it doesn’t feel like I was making the mistake, even though I probably did, so I guess the sensation might be hard to catch at my current level.
I did try to take all the available evidence and update properly on everything. But maybe some motivated stopping on not trying even longer to come up with a concrete example of what I’d have expected to see from orcas.
These sound good, and maybe you have in mind the same thing I mean, but to clarify, I mean like: Do biased thinking in both directions. I.e. be a lawyer for each side in turn. (Don’t only do this of course, also do other things like neutral integration / comparison etc.)
So like, you get your model / argument that says orcas are smart (or that this is a good project). Then you put on the anti hat, and try really hard to find counterarguments—e.g. by thinking of them, and also by motivatedly looking for information that would give a counterargument.
To do this properly you may have to unblend from your wanting X to be true.
A couple notes based on our previous conversations (mainly the non-written conversation):
In our conversations, I think the central reason you expressed for thinking orcas might be super smart was their large brains, and you focused on that, so I somewhat focused on that.
I mentioned that there should be much more impressive behavior if they were that smart; I don’t recall us talking about that much, not sure.
I recommended that you try hard to invent hypotheses that would explain away the brain sizes.
(I’m kinda confused why your post here doesn’t mention that much; I guess implicitly the evidence about hunting defeats the otherwise fairly [strong according to you] evidence from brain size?)
I suggest that a bias you had was “not looking hard enough for defeaters”. But IDK, not at all confident, just a suggestion.
A counterargument is that it takes culture to build cumulative knowledge to build wealth to create cognitive tools that work well enough to do obviously impressive things. And 50,000 individuals distributed globally isn’t enough to build that culture.
That’s also a reason that the overall plan isn’t so promising, as I mentioned here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vKM4CTjz5fPB7vznb/an-alternative-approach-to-superbabies?commentId=D36FJKkbD7FbLLGG2
Agreed
You said “why don’t they e.g. jump in prime numbers to communicate they are smart?” and i was like “hunter gatherer’s don’t know prime numbers and perhaps not even addition” and you were like “fair”.
I mean I thought about what I’d expect to see, but I unfortunately didn’t really imagine them as smart but just as having a lot of potential but being totally untrained.
Yeah the first two points in the post are just very strong evidence that overpower my priors (where by priors i mean considerations from evolution and brain size, as opposed to behavior). Ryan’s point changed my priors, but I think it isn’t related enough to “Can I explain away their cortical neuron count?” that asking myself this question even harder would’ve helped.
Maybe I made a general mistake like “not looking hard enough for defeaters”, but it’s not that actionable yet. I did try to take all the available evidence and update properly on everything. But maybe some motivated stopping on not trying even longer to come up with a concrete example of what I’d have expected to see from orcas. It’s easier to say in retrospect though. Back then I didn’t know in what direction I might be biased.
But I guess I should vigilantly look out for warning signs like “not wanting to bother to think about something very carefully” or so. But it doesn’t feel like I was making the mistake, even though I probably did, so I guess the sensation might be hard to catch at my current level.
These sound good, and maybe you have in mind the same thing I mean, but to clarify, I mean like: Do biased thinking in both directions. I.e. be a lawyer for each side in turn. (Don’t only do this of course, also do other things like neutral integration / comparison etc.)
So like, you get your model / argument that says orcas are smart (or that this is a good project). Then you put on the anti hat, and try really hard to find counterarguments—e.g. by thinking of them, and also by motivatedly looking for information that would give a counterargument.
To do this properly you may have to unblend from your wanting X to be true.
Yeah I’ve really started loving “self-dialogues” since discovering them last month, I have two self-dialogues in my notes just from the last week.
Ah, thx! Will try.