I agree with all of this. Maybe it doesn’t come across clearly in my post, but I tried to differentiate between rank trivia and applicable knowledge, such as cognitive biases, decision theory concepts, logical fallacies, stuff you listed, etc. I don’t know what exactly differentiates applicable knowledge with near-worthless trivia, however.
Duke
Karma: 130
I was trying to avoid re-inserting the links, so thanks so much for your time!
Memory, Spaced Repetition and Life
My entry has been submitted: http://lesswrong.com/lw/64k/memory_spaced_repetition_and_life/
I am working on this vigorously and expect to produce a submitted product soon. Proceed at your own risk if you are considering competing for this prize.
Getting it done to other’s satisfaction and getting it done to your own are not mutually exclusive. You can work quickly to win the prize and then go back and expand.
Why do you care if it is done to your satisfaction when the prize is awarded based on other’s satisfaction with it?
This is an expected value problem. Decide how much a unit of your time is worth, how much time you are willing to invest and then (the hard part) estimate your likelihood for success.
So, if you value your time at $10/hr, are willing to invest 10 hours and estimate you will win the $155 X% of the time then we get this equation:
P(winning)$amount won—P(losing)$amount not won = initial investment
x$155 - (1-x)$0 = $10/hr * 10 hours
solve for x
x = 64.5%, in other words, to “break even” you need to be sure that if you invest 10 hours of your time in this project that you will win it at least 64.5% of the time.
A race may not be the best way to run this for you, since I suspect that you value your time a high rate relative to the potential payoff. But someone who values their time less (or is more productive than you per unit time) may think a race is a wonderful idea.
I am an Anki user and I am interested in working on this project.
While for a couple periods I counted my calories, measuring nutrients—either of the food or my own—is a low priority for me. If I could afford to pay someone to do these things for me I wouldn’t hesitate. I’m content for now with this simple reasoning: How bad could it be to eat only fruits and vegetables? Plus, I can alter the diet in a moment if needed.
Redacted because I misread Manfred’s comment the first time.
The diet is the result of a 5-ish year development. The major changes were, first, elimination of animals, then animal products, then processed products and finally everything that wasn’t fresh fruits and vegetables and some pb and tofu. I heard a couple reasonable talks in the past year making the case that fresh fruits and veggies are unequivocally the healthiest foods. I said fuck it, why not just eat all fruits and veggies then? This was ~3 months ago.
In every way that matters to me it has been an overwhelming success: it’s cheap, it tastes good, it gives me ample energy, it seems to make me feel better physically and emotionally, I have lost weight, I think I appear more lean, and it’s filling—it was a pleasant surprise to find that a small salad can create a satisfying fullness in my body.
*Added: One downside is frequent trips to the store.
I wouldn’t be reading LW right now.
I try to eat only fruits, vegetables and peanut butter. I live alone and prepare my own food. I am at the grocery store 5 to 7 days a week. When freshness is essential and overstocking is bad, then I don’t know of a better way.
A tip on consuming more vegetables and fruits when you have them: don’t also keep other food around that you prefer to veg/fruits. If you prefer x to mangoes and have x and mangoes available to eat, then you’ll eat more x than mangoes. Take willpower out of the equation. Force yourself to eat what you “should.”
You should say something like “Now that we can agree on x, let’s discuss y.” (Given that agreeingt on y is dependent on a prior agreement about x.) Getting someone to agree with you is not the end of the conversation, it is the beginning. Thanking them for agreeing with you makes it seem like all matters are settled and now you may peacefully part ways.
Also, I disagree that it is intrinsically rational or polite or part of some gentlemen’s agreement to thank someone when they concede your point.
Judging both from experience and after reading the original comments for this post, it seems that many people share the misconception that betting—be it on ideas or sports, etc—is always done at odds of 1:1, ie I bet $100 that my prediction y will occur by date z and if i am wrong I lose $100 and if I am right I win $100 (plus my original wager). In fact, astute gambling is about predicting the likelihood of an event and then finding someone to bet with whom you think has done a worse job than you at predicting the likelihood of the event.
For instance, when I watch golf and a player has a long and difficult putt, I frequently hear the commentators say “I wouldn’t bet on this putt going in.” If betting was restricted to wagers at 1 to 1 odds then they would be correct not to bet on the putt dropping, as it is less than 50% likely that it will. But what if I gave the commentator 1000 to 1 odds on the putt going in—would they take that bet? They should. Similarly, I wouldn’t place a bet at 1 to 1 odds that there will be superhuman intelligence by the end of the year. But I’d certainly place this bet if someone would give me 100000 to 1 odds, and I’d consider placing this bet at much lower odds.
On a related note, if you ever see or hear someone make an outrageous prediction of certainty which they are willing to bet on, you are making a mistake by wagering with them at 1 to 1 odds on their prediction. You are allowing them to place a bet where they break even if their prediction is only 50% likely to occur, yet they are claiming 100% likelihood. You should push them to give you better on odds on the bet—as good as you can get from them since theoretically they should think they will never lose this bet. But be careful pushing too hard because the mark will realize that they aren’t actually certain about their prediction.
What’s the evidence that knowing about cognitive biases is more dangerous than knowing math? My claim is that it is just as easy to apply math in an unbalanced way that favors one’s already-held beliefs as it is to apply cognitive biases in a similarly unbalanced way.
In other words, why did EY speak specifically to cognitive biases as opposed to the general problem of using your knowledge more vigilantly to attack others arguments than to attack your own arguments?
I don’t understand what makes learning about cognitive biases intrinsically different from obtaining any other type of knowledge. That is, couldn’t you make a parallel argument that learning math (or any rationality skill) is dangerous unless it is applied evenhandedly to your own beliefs and to the beliefs of others?
I think it is unfair of you to post a public critique of my submission since this is a contest. I have effectively been penalized for being first. Every submission that follows will have the benefit of seeing this critique.
I am also concerned that you have decided to change the contest format immediately following my submission. In my estimation, you had either already decided to change the format prior to my submission (clearly a major disadvantage to me), or you decided to change the format based on my submission, which, again, effectively penalizes me for being first.