In my experience, beginning math students simply expect their nice-sounding procedures to work. For example, they expect to be able to add fractions straight across. When you tell them they can’t, they demand to know why they can’t, as though most nice-sounding theorems are true, and if you want to claim that one isn’t, the burden of proof is on you.
I’ve noticed that, on the few occasions I’ve taught genuine beginning-beginners. Never thought of it in that many words, but yeah. And the analogy to beginning rationality students, including 50-year-old scientists making up their own religions, is obvious and important. People starting out in math are operating in “sounds nice” mode, symbols with no consequences but their poetic resonance; and if you challenge their poetry they act all indignant, “Why’s yours better than mine?” 50-year-old religious scientists never leave that mode.
This resonated with me also. I tutored an at-best remedial high school student in geometry, and despite making lots of progress, could scarcely be talked out of really bad proofs.
“Look at it! It’s a right angle.”
“Is it labeled as a right angle?”
“No, but the one right above it is, and they look just alike!”
50-year-old scientists making up their own religions
In contrast to 30+ year-old rationalists justifying ethical behavior (“one-boxing”) on the grounds that they could be in a simulation run by someone trying to decide whether to defect or cooperate with them in the overworld?
I didn’t mean to refer to Eliezer_Yudkowsky. I just meant that if you put together a lot of the Newcomb and Simulation Argument theorizing, you get something quite similar to currently-existing religions. I was going to make it into a top-level post with all the parts spelled out, but figured it wouldn’t be welcome here.
The comment you responded to is the best one-sentence summary I can give though.
If we learn we are in a world that rewards two-boxing with more utility than one-boxing, “one-boxers” two-box and “two boxers” two-box.
If we learn we are in a world that rewards one-boxing with more utility that two-boxing, “one-boxers” one box and “two-boxers” two-box.
We do not assume we are in either such world. Making up your own atheism consisting of “don’t do the unjustified thing” isn’t the same as making up your own religion by poorly justifying the unjustified thing.
I’ve noticed that, on the few occasions I’ve taught genuine beginning-beginners. Never thought of it in that many words, but yeah. And the analogy to beginning rationality students, including 50-year-old scientists making up their own religions, is obvious and important. People starting out in math are operating in “sounds nice” mode, symbols with no consequences but their poetic resonance; and if you challenge their poetry they act all indignant, “Why’s yours better than mine?” 50-year-old religious scientists never leave that mode.
This resonated with me also. I tutored an at-best remedial high school student in geometry, and despite making lots of progress, could scarcely be talked out of really bad proofs.
“Look at it! It’s a right angle.” “Is it labeled as a right angle?” “No, but the one right above it is, and they look just alike!”
Is there a specific example of “50-year-old scientists making up their own religions” that you’re thinking of?
Maybe Steven Jay Gould’s nonoverlapping magisteria?
Tipler, too.
did you have anyone in mind?
In contrast to 30+ year-old rationalists justifying ethical behavior (“one-boxing”) on the grounds that they could be in a simulation run by someone trying to decide whether to defect or cooperate with them in the overworld?
Eliezer: “50-year-old scientists making up their own religions”
Silas: “In contrast to 30+ year-old rationalists justifying”
Eliezer is not yet 30. He’ll turn thirty in a few days, though.
Clearly this is grounds for another Overcoming Bias Bay Area Meetup. Meetup! Meetup!
I didn’t mean to refer to Eliezer_Yudkowsky. I just meant that if you put together a lot of the Newcomb and Simulation Argument theorizing, you get something quite similar to currently-existing religions. I was going to make it into a top-level post with all the parts spelled out, but figured it wouldn’t be welcome here.
The comment you responded to is the best one-sentence summary I can give though.
If we learn we are in a world that rewards two-boxing with more utility than one-boxing, “one-boxers” two-box and “two boxers” two-box.
If we learn we are in a world that rewards one-boxing with more utility that two-boxing, “one-boxers” one box and “two-boxers” two-box.
We do not assume we are in either such world. Making up your own atheism consisting of “don’t do the unjustified thing” isn’t the same as making up your own religion by poorly justifying the unjustified thing.