.There are a lot of awkward (but compelling) phrasings here, which make this exhausting and confusing (though still intriguingly novel) to read through. This post was very obviously written by someone whose first language isn’t English, which has both downsides and upsides.
.Giving new names to S1 and S2 is a good decision. “Yankee” has uncomfortably specific connotations for (some) Americans though: maybe go with “Yolo” instead?
.X and Y dialogue about how they see each other, how they need to listen to each other, and how much energy they each think they need. They don’t dialogue about any kind of external reality, or show off their different approaches to a real problem: the one place they mention the object level is Y ‘helping’ X avoid “avocado coffee”, a problem which neither he nor anyone else has ever had. (Contrast the Appendix, which is more interesting and meaningful because it involves actual things which actually happened.)
But it’s still really hard for me, which is why these dialogues are the best cost-benefit I’ve found to stimulate my probabilistic thinking. Do you know of any better ones?
Thanks for the feedback, abstractapplic. You’re right—adding real-world examples could make the dialogue feel more grounded, so I’ll focus on that in the revision.
The “Yolo” suggestion makes sense to capture the spirit of System 1 without unintended associations, so I’ll go with that.
Regarding Metaculus: it’s a good platform for practicing probabilistic thinking, but I think there might be value in a more structured self-evaluation to narrow down specific behaviors. Do you know of any frameworks that could help with that—maybe something inspired by Superforecasting?
As a non-native English speaker, I realize the phrasing might come across as a bit unusual. I’ve tried refining it with tools like Claude and GPT many times, but it can get complex and occasionally leads to “hallucinations.” Let me know if you have any tips for keeping it clearer. Which part of the text seems most confusing to you?
Notes:
.There are a lot of awkward (but compelling) phrasings here, which make this exhausting and confusing (though still intriguingly novel) to read through. This post was very obviously written by someone whose first language isn’t English, which has both downsides and upsides.
.Giving new names to S1 and S2 is a good decision. “Yankee” has uncomfortably specific connotations for (some) Americans though: maybe go with “Yolo” instead?
.X and Y dialogue about how they see each other, how they need to listen to each other, and how much energy they each think they need. They don’t dialogue about any kind of external reality, or show off their different approaches to a real problem: the one place they mention the object level is Y ‘helping’ X avoid “avocado coffee”, a problem which neither he nor anyone else has ever had. (Contrast the Appendix, which is more interesting and meaningful because it involves actual things which actually happened.)
Play-money prediction markets (like Metaculus)?
Thanks for the feedback, abstractapplic. You’re right—adding real-world examples could make the dialogue feel more grounded, so I’ll focus on that in the revision.
The “Yolo” suggestion makes sense to capture the spirit of System 1 without unintended associations, so I’ll go with that.
Regarding Metaculus: it’s a good platform for practicing probabilistic thinking, but I think there might be value in a more structured self-evaluation to narrow down specific behaviors. Do you know of any frameworks that could help with that—maybe something inspired by Superforecasting?
As a non-native English speaker, I realize the phrasing might come across as a bit unusual. I’ve tried refining it with tools like Claude and GPT many times, but it can get complex and occasionally leads to “hallucinations.” Let me know if you have any tips for keeping it clearer. Which part of the text seems most confusing to you?