EchoingHorror

Karma: 323

EchoingHorror 18 Apr 2012 0:18 UTC
1 point
in reply to: thomblake’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 15, chapter 84
Thanks. The middle paragraph was far too predictable and mundane to exist without the proper punchline.

EchoingHorror 11 Apr 2012 20:14 UTC
23 points
in reply to: Velorien’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 15, chapter 84
Jesus in Potterverse, as a wizard who experimented with turning squib-disciples into wizards so he could eventually do the same with all muggles and be their king. His blood in wine-potions and flesh in bread-potions only gave the recipients as much magic as went into creating those body parts, allowing the occasional “miracle”.

Decades after this story, Draco and his Science Eaters isolate and replicate the magic genes and start making potions that turn muggles and squibs into wizards (but also marks them in a way they can’t see, for … research, and to give them extra power), and use their huge army of new wizards and noble and blood purist allies everywhere to conquer the world. Hermione leads a resistance force of the best trained wizards alive to stop them. Harry discovers that Draco’s mark sets in too soon before the transformation to wizard is complete, becoming fatal within a few years in ~90% of cases, which Draco considers an acceptable risk to become a wizard. And that it bends their will to Draco’s. So Harry, the elite Bayesian Conspiracy, and the Chaos Legion, formed from anyone/anything else that would fight, fight to remove the mark, stop Hermione’s people from killing new wizards before they’ve been freed and had a chance to choose their own actions, distribute a potion that doesn’t fatally mark new wizards, and protect the new wizards without the mark, who are about as powerful as third-years.

The rise in wizard creation and deaths triggers the end of Jesus’s stasis spell, and he analyzes the situation, gathers Harry, Hermione, and Draco together, and tells Harry to divide a third of his troops between Draco’s and Hermione’s armies, to make it fair. Hermione dies.

EchoingHorror 3 Mar 2012 3:39 UTC
4 points
on: People who “don’t rationalize”? [Help Rationality Group figure it out]
The cues people have for noticing their rationalizations are things they notice before they’re done thinking. They have not rationalized; they had a thought that could lead to rationalization or a feeling they associate with rationalizing. And then they stopped. But there was a large enough time between when they started arguing for a conclusion and when they decided to think about it that they noticed their rationalization. Having a reflex to think about a question fast enough compared to the reflex to rationalize can cause someone to not notice their arguments for some answer, then say they never rationalize, or just not rationalize.

I don’t relate to anyone’s examples of their own rationalizations or have use for the Litany of Tarski except for explaining myself to people who don’t think deliberately. I would say I never rationalize if that is the alternative to giving an example of a time when I did because I haven’t noticed such an example. But I also know that I am not in conscious control of most of my thought process, and that enumerating potential evidence for a hypothesis looks suspiciously like rationalization, so I would say I do rationalize if I can explain that instead of giving examples. Rationalization can occur subconsciously and not be recognized as a rationalization if it is not allowed to corrupt the whole line of thinking.

EchoingHorror 26 Jan 2012 21:30 UTC
20 points
on: Shit Rationalists Say?
“I want to get my microexpressions analyzed so I can know what I’m thinking.”

EchoingHorror 29 Sep 2011 3:35 UTC
4 points
in reply to: pedanterrific’s comment on: MIT Challenge: blogger to attempt CS curriculum on own
It helps that I never get the jokes.

EchoingHorror 28 Sep 2011 21:04 UTC
4 points
in reply to: pedanterrific’s comment on: MIT Challenge: blogger to attempt CS curriculum on own
I imagine some researchers will study learners’ processes for learning in terms of cognitive algorithms, mental habits, preferred thinking styles, or whatever it turns out to be that makes some people learn better and faster than others, and then experiment with ways to change the process individuals use to learn. And they’ll teach us how to teach how to learn.

EchoingHorror 28 Sep 2011 4:00 UTC
1 point
in reply to: pedanterrific’s comment on: MIT Challenge: blogger to attempt CS curriculum on own
Well, after that and that’s successful implementation on a large scale.

EchoingHorror 28 Sep 2011 3:54 UTC
4 points
in reply to: ScottHYoung’s comment on: MIT Challenge: blogger to attempt CS curriculum on own
From what you wrote in Holistic Learning about the use of genius and innate talent to explain away successful learning, I think we agree that anyone without some relevant disability who is in a stable environment with access to the right resources should be able to do the same, and will after we learn how to teach how to learn. By “unimpressive,” I mean “what one would expect, given what the wide distribution of mental skill levels and effort made by people who complete 4-year university says about its actual difficulty and the probable level of skill and effort of the ‘productivity hacking’ person doing it.” You are comparatively impressive, and a very special snowflake.

Are you buying the textbooks/ finding your own? Just using the video lectures (and internet for removed sections) seems unbearably slow, and you aren’t in nearly as much control over the flow of information.

EchoingHorror 28 Sep 2011 1:58 UTC
0 points
on: MIT Challenge: blogger to attempt CS curriculum on own
A lot of people do four courses over 14 weeks, and that average of 24.5 days/course makes a speed reader’s ~11 days/course without all the work and stress of assignments he understands before completing unimpressive. Sounds fun though.

EchoingHorror 25 Aug 2011 20:51 UTC
0 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: [Poll] Who looks better in your eyes?
Why would person A being significantly smarter be a bad thing? Just from the danger of being hacked? I’m not thinking of anything else that would weigh against the extra utility from their intelligence.

EchoingHorror 15 May 2011 7:18 UTC
0 points
on: People who want to save the world
“Save the world” is a subset of “improve the world” where saving is improving by a lot in a way that the world really needs it. “Improving the world” can mean settling for a smaller improvement, but probably doesn’t mean “improving in every way so it will include saving the world”. If people stop wanting to “save the world” because they weighted their desire to improve it in lesser ways anywhere near their desire to save it, to sound less egotistical, to avoid the applause light, or to dissociate from people who think they’re saving the world by raising awareness or making a list of people who say they want to save the world, or whatever, and the world doesn’t get saved because of it, I will be sad.

EchoingHorror 15 May 2011 6:32 UTC
0 points
in reply to: nazgulnarsil’s comment on: People who want to save the world
For these eleven … maybe. Much more likely than 10^-33 for eleven average or random people. My guess is yes, but they may just be good at presenting their credentials.

EchoingHorror 15 May 2011 5:44 UTC
0 points
on: Southern California Meetup May 21, Weekly Irvine Meetups on Wednesdays
Sweet: three meetups (Saturday and surrounding Wednesdays) at the time I’m couch-surfing (or urban camping) in the area.

EchoingHorror 15 May 2011 4:38 UTC
6 points
on: What we’re losing
In my vision for the future of the rationalist community, most members are interested in the core of meta-rationality and anti-akrasia and each is interested in a set of peripheral topics (various ways of putting practicing rationality, problems like Sleeping Beauty, trading tutoring, practicing skills, helping the community in practical ways, study groups, social meetings with rationalists, etc.). Some fringe members will be involved in the peripherals and rationality applications but not theory, but they probably won’t last long. LW is the core, and will be based around meta-rationality. Meetup groups will form around what local members are interested in, and start talking about those things online, maybe in their Google groups, maybe on their own websites, but probably somewhere cozier and not part of current LW, so the local communities can build their relationships. Meetup groups in different areas talking about the same things will merge their online discussions when they want to, possibly as part of LW.

But perhaps a lot of people would rather talk about rationality than use it. It’s the easy thing to do. Meetups might be useful to get people to observe more evidence and encounter new problems, encouraging the use of rationality.

Or we could skip straight to that by creating subforums for specific topics like Probability, Values, AI, and Singularity for LW users, inviting more posts on the topics you’re missing.

EchoingHorror 15 May 2011 4:07 UTC
5 points
in reply to: Rain’s comment on: People who want to save the world
Your action, praise, do I.
- Rationalist!Yoda

EchoingHorror 14 May 2011 8:24 UTC
7 points
on: People who want to save the world
I want the world to not need to be saved, but will settle for it being saved. The reality of existential risk is such an inconvenience. I want to help, but probably won’t have, recognize, and successfully act on the opportunity to do so.

The scenarios I can imagine where a list like this would be useful are farfetched.

EchoingHorror 6 May 2011 5:13 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Danny_Hintze’s comment on: Phoenix Less Wrong Meetup- Saturday, 5-7-11, 5pm
Plans changed; I’ll see you there. I’ll be the one generously keeping some student’s guest pass or M&G from going to waste.

EchoingHorror 2 May 2011 20:00 UTC
3 points
in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: Ethics and rationality of suicide
I do have a couple grams of adderall… om nom nom.

MDMA is a legit treatment option I should probably try; I wouldn’t want to influence public opinion against it.

EchoingHorror 2 May 2011 19:20 UTC
2 points
in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: Ethics and rationality of suicide
Dammit; all the good ways to die are slow and painful. Might as well live.

But nitrous oxide would be fun.

Signalling against suicide makes a lot of people want to kill themselves, but I’m not one of them. Bunch of whiners...

EchoingHorror 2 May 2011 8:14 UTC
1 point
in reply to: anonynamja’s comment on: Ethics and rationality of suicide
Is there a list of cryonicist-approved suicide methods? That could prove helpful.