Today, one of the chief pieces of advice I give to aspiring young rationalists is “Do not attempt long chains of reasoning or complicated plans.”
Advice more or less completely ignored by everyone, including EY himself.
An alternative interpretation is that we should break up long chains of reasoning into individually analyzed lemmas and break up complicated plans into subgoals.
Hell, even LW has counter-memes against entering politics.
Avoiding discussing politics directly is not the same as not personally entering politics.
Traditional Rationalists can agree to disagree.
The LW advance in this area seems to consist entirely of agreeing to disagree after quoting Aumann’s theorem and continuing the argument well past the point of diminishing returns
It’s good advice, but only if both parties are truly following it; an admittedly implausible prospect.
If math is what will save us from making interesting new mistakes, we clearly aren’t doing enough of it.
What about requiring all new users to solve some different numbers of Euler problems to comment, vote, post top level, have cool neon color names, etc.? Alternatively or conjunctively, breaking up the site into “fuzzy self help” and “1337 Bayes mathhacker” sections might help.
What about requiring all new users to solve some different numbers of Euler problems to comment, vote, post top level, have cool neon color names, etc.? Alternatively or conjunctively, breaking up the site into “fuzzy self help” and “1337 Bayes mathhacker” sections might help.
Even assuming that this only filters out people whose contributions are unhelpful and provides useful exercise to those who are, it still sounds like too much inconvenience.
It can certainly be helpful to apply actual math to a question rather than relying on vague intuitions, but if you don’t ensure that the math corresponds to the reality, then calculations only provide an illusion of helpfulness, and illusory helpfulness is worse than transparent unhelpfulness.
I’d much prefer a system incentivizing actual empiricism (“I will go out and test this with reliable methodology”) rather than math with uncertain applicability to the real world.
Today, one of the chief pieces of advice I give to aspiring young rationalists is “Do not attempt long chains of reasoning or complicated plans.”
Advice more or less completely ignored by everyone, including EY himself.
An alternative interpretation is that we should break up long chains of reasoning into individually analyzed lemmas and break up complicated plans into subgoals.
It would be overwhelmingly excellent if people did that.
Hell, even LW has counter-memes against entering politics.
Avoiding discussing politics directly is not the same as not personally entering politics.
True, I should have said “engaging in” or similar.
If math is what will save us from making interesting new mistakes, we clearly aren’t doing enough of it.
What about requiring all new users to solve some different numbers of Euler problems to comment, vote, post top level, have cool neon color names, etc.? Alternatively or conjunctively, breaking up the site into “fuzzy self help” and “1337 Bayes mathhacker” sections might help.
I don’t have any data on these sorts of incentive programs yet.
I disagree that breaking up the site into multiple walled gardens would be helpful, under the principle that there are few enough of us as it is without fragmenting ourselves further.
An alternative interpretation is that we should break up long chains of reasoning into individually analyzed lemmas and break up complicated plans into subgoals.
Avoiding discussing politics directly is not the same as not personally entering politics.
It’s good advice, but only if both parties are truly following it; an admittedly implausible prospect.
What about requiring all new users to solve some different numbers of Euler problems to comment, vote, post top level, have cool neon color names, etc.? Alternatively or conjunctively, breaking up the site into “fuzzy self help” and “1337 Bayes mathhacker” sections might help.
Even assuming that this only filters out people whose contributions are unhelpful and provides useful exercise to those who are, it still sounds like too much inconvenience.
It can certainly be helpful to apply actual math to a question rather than relying on vague intuitions, but if you don’t ensure that the math corresponds to the reality, then calculations only provide an illusion of helpfulness, and illusory helpfulness is worse than transparent unhelpfulness.
I’d much prefer a system incentivizing actual empiricism (“I will go out and test this with reliable methodology”) rather than math with uncertain applicability to the real world.
It would be overwhelmingly excellent if people did that.
True, I should have said “engaging in” or similar.
I don’t have any data on these sorts of incentive programs yet.
I disagree that breaking up the site into multiple walled gardens would be helpful, under the principle that there are few enough of us as it is without fragmenting ourselves further.
Because I have nowhere better to post this:
Public key is on my wiki userpage.