The reason why you don’t know of any such work, to be quite frank, is because it doesn’t exist. There is as yet no sufficiently quantized definition of rationality as to allow for such testing to be conducted.
I’m willing to cede this point. But, you seem to have not applied this argument to your own ideas:
It occurs to me that developing mnemotechnical skill would be convergent with becoming a better rationalist
I’m isolating this to point this out more clearly: will you acknowledge that this is a sufficiently inaccurate quotation of me as to represent an example of the Cherry Picking fallacy?
But, what you did say was along the lines of “We can get better memory, so we can remember more rationalist things like biases and heuristics! Gee, wouldn’t that be nice!”. (It sounded like an applause light to me.)
But, what you did say was along the lines of “We can get better memory, so we can remember more rationalist things like biases and heuristics! Gee, wouldn’t that be nice!”. (It sounded like an applause light to me.)
I see. Where, exactly, are you getting the “Gee, wouldn’t that be nice!” element from?
You didn’t say why just remembering biases and heuristics would be all that useful.
I see. Well, I can see that any future writings I submit anywhere will have to flesh that element out then. I had assumed the positive utility of easier recall ability for those categories of items would be obvious.
I didn’t say it wasn’t obvious. I was meaning that it seemed like you tacked it on the end to superficially validate mnemotechnics by using LW “buzz words”.
I was meaning that it seemed like you tacked it on the end to superficially validate mnemotechnics by using LW “buzz words”.
I can definitively tell you that this impression is not valid. If I had meant to target the jargon/patois of the LessWrong community, it would have been obvious.
I included the ease of recollection of pre-developed heuristics and known cognitive biases as an example of how optimization approaches can be convergent. This was the sum of my intent.
I’m isolating this to point this out more clearly: will you acknowledge that this is a sufficiently inaccurate quotation of me as to represent an example of the Cherry Picking fallacy?
Possibly, but it wasn’t intentional. Sorry.
But, what you did say was along the lines of “We can get better memory, so we can remember more rationalist things like biases and heuristics! Gee, wouldn’t that be nice!”. (It sounded like an applause light to me.)
I see. Where, exactly, are you getting the “Gee, wouldn’t that be nice!” element from?
You didn’t say why just remembering biases and heuristics would be all that useful.
EDIT: And this is where hyperlinks and the massive number of other articles of LW nicely work together.
I see. Well, I can see that any future writings I submit anywhere will have to flesh that element out then. I had assumed the positive utility of easier recall ability for those categories of items would be obvious.
I didn’t say it wasn’t obvious. I was meaning that it seemed like you tacked it on the end to superficially validate mnemotechnics by using LW “buzz words”.
I can definitively tell you that this impression is not valid. If I had meant to target the jargon/patois of the LessWrong community, it would have been obvious.
I included the ease of recollection of pre-developed heuristics and known cognitive biases as an example of how optimization approaches can be convergent. This was the sum of my intent.