Voted down for being off-topic. Feel free to delve into a deep discussion about the merits of doing this and what should be considered off-topic.
Voted down because I think your downvote is silly, perhaps even absurd. pre is attempting to overcome a common misunderstanding that appeals too much to the human intuition. He is attempting to do so by eliminating his own confusion. More on topic than a lot of the stuff we yabber on about.
Is every attempt at overcoming an intuitive misunderstanding on-topic? Should we have articles about the different sizes of infinity*, the fact that every pair of different real numbers has a rational number between the two, the fact that ZFC has countable models, and so on? Should we post tutorials about monads, calculus, and special relativity in order to eliminate confusion about those topics?
I don’t think so. We aren’t a general-purpose academic blog. We cover topics that aren’t covered elsewhere; topics we don’t cover are covered elsewhere. Whatever it is we do, this makes us better at it.
It would be nice if we had a good definition of rationality. Please don’t cite Eliezer’s “epistemic rationality” and “instrumental rationality”; by those definitions, knowing Mandarin and Spanish probably makes a person roughly as rational as knowing Bayes’ law.
* In ZFC, which has an axiom stating that infinite sets exist.
Is every attempt at overcoming an intuitive misunderstanding on-topic?
Possibly. If they are suitably interesting to enough of us.
Should we have articles about the different sizes of infinity*
Yes please. I haven’t looked into that too much.
the fact that every pair of different real numbers has a rational number between the two
Well, if you really want to. That’s more ‘trivial’ than off topic.
the fact that ZFC has countable models
I’m a bit rusty on that one too.
Should we post tutorials about monads
Which kind? That word does overtime.
calculus
If it is particularly high quality.
and special relativity in order to eliminate confusion about those topics?
If someone requests an explanation and someone is willing to take the time then by all means.
I don’t think so. We aren’t a general-purpose academic blog. We cover topics that aren’t covered elsewhere; topics we don’t cover are covered elsewhere. Whatever it is we do, this makes us better at it.
Yes, I could go back to, for example, a MENSA newsgroup or assorted blogs that cover specific academic blogs for every different topic. But I don’t want that. The signal to woo ratio is far too high. At least here there are specific cultural pressures in place to counter some of the worst kinds signalling bulls@#$ that hinders the discussion of actual information. I can tolerate this particular place without leaving in disgust for longer than at most other places where I engage intellectually.
It would be nice if we had a good definition of rationality. Please don’t cite Eliezer’s “epistemic rationality” and “instrumental rationality”; by those definitions, knowing Mandarin and Spanish probably makes a person roughly as rational as knowing Bayes’ law.
I liked those two definitions when they were supplied. The reason that I liked it was that I had been quite often making replies pointing out the difference between those two issues when ‘rational’ was being thrown around recklessly. Being supplied with ‘epistemic’ and ‘instrumental’ as labels saved me typing. I suspect I will much prefer those two definitions than the one you are aiming for. They are simple references to the technical issues. Alternative usages that people sometimes throw about tend to be far more about using the term as an indicator of in-group status and all the kinds of things that the in group people do. For example I’ve seen ‘rational’ being thrown in when ‘in fitting with libertarian philosophy’ would be more appropriate.
The good thing about the karma system is that we don’t need to agree. You can vote stuff down and I can vote stuff up. If enough people prefer your exclusive focus on, well, whatever it is that you are trying to focus on then you will get your way. If not, then you can simply ignore the thread and you lose only several seconds parsing the (quite informative!) title.
Voted up for being a valid, well-argued position that I can clearly see isn’t just a mistake. I do wonder, though, if being this sort of general-purpose web site is something we could actually pull off. What causes us to have our unusual level of quality? Do we attract people who tend to be especially tolerable? Do we train people to be especially worthwhile?
I think significant evidence for the former is the fact that virtually everyone here uses capitalization and punctuation (I have seen one counterexample, and much fuss was made over it) and, for the most part, correct spelling and grammar. I assume that reading Yudkowsky doesn’t cause one’s language abilities to improve. I would hate to see what would happen if someone incapable of spelling reasonably well came on here.
(Can I mention that using “the reason being” as a determiner phrase irritates me? It sounds like a misinterpretation of the dependent clause “the reason being that X” as being the independent clause “the reason being is that X”.)
What causes us to have our unusual level of quality? Do we attract people who tend to be especially tolerable? Do we train people to be especially worthwhile?
I think we attract people who favour a certain type of thought, one that I find relaxing to engage with. I may suggest that it is the style of thought that sometimes begets labels like ‘autistic spectrum’.
I would hate to see what would happen if someone incapable of spelling reasonably well came on here.
Firefox spellchecker. Grammar incapabilities would be a problem. Although I suspect proficiency with grammar comes with the aforementioned turf.
Can I mention that using “the reason being” as a determiner phrase irritates me? It sounds like a misinterpretation of the dependent clause “the reason being that X” as being the independent clause “the reason being is that X”.
Now that I reread the phrase it makes me cringe. Edited.
I would hate to see what would happen if someone incapable of spelling reasonably well came on here.
Firefox spellchecker. Grammar incapabilities would be a problem. Although I suspect proficiency with grammar comes with the aforementioned turf.
Shirley understanding yew possible obtain conditionally at writer intelligence? Pure concept only necessary at communicate, intelligence writer mind have intelligence concept, mode of language transmission mere inconvenient.
Conversely, the idiom tongue is the lips of a giggling crow.
When I said ‘Eliezer’s “epistemic rationality” and “instrumental rationality”’, I was talking specifically about this. Perhaps I’m mistaken, and these definitions are an oral tradition passed on through the generations by mouth before Eliezer finally wrote them down.
Er, there were plenty of pages on the internet about “epistemic rationality” and “instrumental rationality” long before that. Like I say, they are the standard terms:
Voted down because I think your downvote is silly, perhaps even absurd. pre is attempting to overcome a common misunderstanding that appeals too much to the human intuition. He is attempting to do so by eliminating his own confusion. More on topic than a lot of the stuff we yabber on about.
Is every attempt at overcoming an intuitive misunderstanding on-topic? Should we have articles about the different sizes of infinity*, the fact that every pair of different real numbers has a rational number between the two, the fact that ZFC has countable models, and so on? Should we post tutorials about monads, calculus, and special relativity in order to eliminate confusion about those topics?
I don’t think so. We aren’t a general-purpose academic blog. We cover topics that aren’t covered elsewhere; topics we don’t cover are covered elsewhere. Whatever it is we do, this makes us better at it.
It would be nice if we had a good definition of rationality. Please don’t cite Eliezer’s “epistemic rationality” and “instrumental rationality”; by those definitions, knowing Mandarin and Spanish probably makes a person roughly as rational as knowing Bayes’ law.
* In ZFC, which has an axiom stating that infinite sets exist.
Possibly. If they are suitably interesting to enough of us.
Yes please. I haven’t looked into that too much.
Well, if you really want to. That’s more ‘trivial’ than off topic.
I’m a bit rusty on that one too.
Which kind? That word does overtime.
If it is particularly high quality.
If someone requests an explanation and someone is willing to take the time then by all means.
Yes, I could go back to, for example, a MENSA newsgroup or assorted blogs that cover specific academic blogs for every different topic. But I don’t want that. The signal to woo ratio is far too high. At least here there are specific cultural pressures in place to counter some of the worst kinds signalling bulls@#$ that hinders the discussion of actual information. I can tolerate this particular place without leaving in disgust for longer than at most other places where I engage intellectually.
I liked those two definitions when they were supplied. The reason that I liked it was that I had been quite often making replies pointing out the difference between those two issues when ‘rational’ was being thrown around recklessly. Being supplied with ‘epistemic’ and ‘instrumental’ as labels saved me typing. I suspect I will much prefer those two definitions than the one you are aiming for. They are simple references to the technical issues. Alternative usages that people sometimes throw about tend to be far more about using the term as an indicator of in-group status and all the kinds of things that the in group people do. For example I’ve seen ‘rational’ being thrown in when ‘in fitting with libertarian philosophy’ would be more appropriate.
The good thing about the karma system is that we don’t need to agree. You can vote stuff down and I can vote stuff up. If enough people prefer your exclusive focus on, well, whatever it is that you are trying to focus on then you will get your way. If not, then you can simply ignore the thread and you lose only several seconds parsing the (quite informative!) title.
Voted up for being a valid, well-argued position that I can clearly see isn’t just a mistake. I do wonder, though, if being this sort of general-purpose web site is something we could actually pull off. What causes us to have our unusual level of quality? Do we attract people who tend to be especially tolerable? Do we train people to be especially worthwhile?
I think significant evidence for the former is the fact that virtually everyone here uses capitalization and punctuation (I have seen one counterexample, and much fuss was made over it) and, for the most part, correct spelling and grammar. I assume that reading Yudkowsky doesn’t cause one’s language abilities to improve. I would hate to see what would happen if someone incapable of spelling reasonably well came on here.
(Can I mention that using “the reason being” as a determiner phrase irritates me? It sounds like a misinterpretation of the dependent clause “the reason being that X” as being the independent clause “the reason being is that X”.)
I think we attract people who favour a certain type of thought, one that I find relaxing to engage with. I may suggest that it is the style of thought that sometimes begets labels like ‘autistic spectrum’.
Firefox spellchecker. Grammar incapabilities would be a problem. Although I suspect proficiency with grammar comes with the aforementioned turf.
Now that I reread the phrase it makes me cringe. Edited.
Shirley understanding yew possible obtain conditionally at writer intelligence? Pure concept only necessary at communicate, intelligence writer mind have intelligence concept, mode of language transmission mere inconvenient.
Conversely, the idiom tongue is the lips of a giggling crow.
“Epistemic rationality” and “instrumental rationality” are the standard terms.
Reason is deduction plus induction plus Occam.
Rationality is using reason to pursue goals.
What do you mean by “standard”? They’re not so well-accepted by the community that I like them.
I mean that it’s not really a case of “Eliezer’s “epistemic rationality” and “instrumental rationality”″ - since he didn’t originate those terms.
The terms do seem to be a bit duff. The underlying concepts are OK—but IMO, the terminology leaves something to be desired.
When I said ‘Eliezer’s “epistemic rationality” and “instrumental rationality”’, I was talking specifically about this. Perhaps I’m mistaken, and these definitions are an oral tradition passed on through the generations by mouth before Eliezer finally wrote them down.
Er, there were plenty of pages on the internet about “epistemic rationality” and “instrumental rationality” long before that. Like I say, they are the standard terms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_rationality
http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Epistemic-Rationality-Richard-Foley/dp/0674882768