more than I’m willing to commit to an article I am writing out of boredom
As a reader, this gives me pause. If you didn’t have any more compelling reason to write than that, you shouldn’t expect anyone to have a compelling reason to read. Maybe give yourself more credit: you weren’t merely bored, the fact that you may have felt bored is incidental to the fact that you had something to say!
there is no way I’m going to go through the rigours of Solomonoff induction
Solomonoff induction is uncomputable; it’s great to be aware that the theoretical foundations exist, but it’s also important to be aware of what the theoretical foundations are and aren’t good for. (Imagine saying “there’s no way I’m going to go through the rigors of predicting the future state of all air molecules here given their current state” when what you actually want is a thermometer.)
On first encountering the glasses users that were smart the fact that they wore glasses might have left a deep impression on the people who encountered them and may have been associated with their perceived intelligence.
But “On first encountering _X_ that were _Y_, the fact that they were _X_ might have left a deep impression on the people who encountered them” works for any _X_ and _Y_; it can’t explain why the stereotype links glasses and intelligence in particular.
A more specific hypothesis: people are more likely to need glasses while reading, and reading is mentally associated with intelligence because it is in fact the case that P(likes to read | intelligent) > P(likes to read | not intelligent).
The above is the charitable hypothesis. I decline—at this juncture—to mention the less charitable one.
Don’t leave your readers in suspense like that; it’s cruel! (Also, what makes a hypothesis “charitable”, exactly?)
I am not Yudkowsky, and so I would not proffer an evolutionary psychology hypothesis
Eliezer doesn’t have a magic license authorizing him in particular to tell just-so stories: if he can do it, anyone can! (Some argue that we shouldn’t, but I don’t think I agree.)
As a reader, this gives me pause. If you didn’t have any more compelling reason to write than that, you shouldn’t expect anyone to have a compelling reason to read. Maybe give yourself more credit: you weren’t merely bored, the fact that you may have felt bored is incidental to the fact that you had something to say!
Solomonoff induction is uncomputable; it’s great to be aware that the theoretical foundations exist, but it’s also important to be aware of what the theoretical foundations are and aren’t good for. (Imagine saying “there’s no way I’m going to go through the rigors of predicting the future state of all air molecules here given their current state” when what you actually want is a thermometer.)
But “On first encountering _X_ that were _Y_, the fact that they were _X_ might have left a deep impression on the people who encountered them” works for any _X_ and _Y_; it can’t explain why the stereotype links glasses and intelligence in particular.
A more specific hypothesis: people are more likely to need glasses while reading, and reading is mentally associated with intelligence because it is in fact the case that P(likes to read | intelligent) > P(likes to read | not intelligent).
Don’t leave your readers in suspense like that; it’s cruel! (Also, what makes a hypothesis “charitable”, exactly?)
Are they?
Eliezer doesn’t have a magic license authorizing him in particular to tell just-so stories: if he can do it, anyone can! (Some argue that we shouldn’t, but I don’t think I agree.)