Also, should “A Science-Based Case for Large-Scale Simulation” be cited on page 4?
james_edwards
Karma: 104
Cool indeed!
Both uses of “regime” on page 3 look weird:
improving accuracy by a percentage point in the ninety-percent regime arguably makes translation software a lot more useful than improving accuracy by a point in the thirty-percent regime
“Region” seems better to me.
Do you have something to drink? Get yourself some tea, coffee, or water.
Also: Is your work area bright enough? Turn on your desk lamp.
Feels like a free concentration boost to me.
I have dramatically increased the speed at which I’m learning Mandarin by the simple expedient of removing the books from my bag and the music from my mp3 player. This has left me with two alternatives for my commute; be bored or leisten to a learn Mandarin audiobook. I am very slowly becoming less shit.
Nice work Dean!
PS. I tried reading the article on smallish groups (my best social structure for learning), but it was unfortunately a paid article and I’m not currently enjoying free access to the publication. If you have a way of enlightening me that does not require 35$ for me upfront, I’ll be more than willing to check it out.
Reflex Rational (or Rational Reflex)
Praxis Rational
Accurate Agency
The Accuracy Agency
Change Agent
Improved Metrics
Practical Measures
Better Measures
Measure Mental
Calibration
Making Sense
Percept Action
Precision Living
Upvoted for “Target on Right”.
How about “Groundswell”?
It refers to a kind of wave, as well as a change in people’s views or behaviour (usually viewed positively). “Grounds” also has a relevant meaning as in “grounds to believe”, without being a blatantly distasteful pun.
Lucidity
Reflexively Rational
Powergame Reality
Power Level Life
More ideas below. Incidentally, I am not really aiming to win the thread here. I just learned the cool technique of writing lists of 100 ideas, the idea being that quantity leads to quality. Apparently it’s most effective to have some people generate ideas, and others critique them. By now I’m firmly in the first camp on this task.
The latest ideas:
Groundswell (as in logical grounds)
Enhance Mental
Inferential Iteration
Phronesis (or Fronesis)
Logical Operators
Mentat Mentors
Sharp Ratio (a pun on this)
Edit: Fixed links.
A worthy clarification! I considered making one comment per idea, but I’m not sure they are all up to that level of scrutiny.
A few more:
Good Reason
Sight and Mind
Tactical Reasoning
Wisdom Plus One
I’m on a phone, apologies for terse commenting.
Wrote a list of 100 ideas, here are the highlights:
Insight Out
The Upsight Institute
Wisdom18
Level Up
Thinking Plus
Reason Out
Making Sense
Important and timely (the next Melbourne LW meetup will focus on setting good goals, an exercise which has always confounded me).
I find particularly interesting the “wedding gift todo” example, where imagined achievement of the goal stands-in for actually achieving the stated goal (giving a wedding gift). We want to have and act on “goals” rather than “urges”. But setting goals is the kind of activity where “urges” can dominate. To me this looks like the analogue of belief-in-belief. We want our reasoning processes to be reflexively consistent, but in practice they often fail to work that way.
Edit: And when I go back and look at “Belief in Belief”, that’s where Eliezer outlines the “invisible dragon” example, so my main point is already implicit in this post!
More generally, it may be that your unusual choices benefit you, but impose costs on your friends and family. Unusual choices are less “safe”—they can move you farther from ordinary outcomes, and the results are harder to predict. Compare the stereotyped conflicts between parents and their teenaged kids:
Teenager (as seen by parents): “Later, olds! I’m going out with my poorly socialised friends to get wasted and hook up (maybe someone will get pregnant). Woo!”
Parents (as seen by teenager): “Stop there! Ve have ways of preventing your fun! You are never allowed to do anything that you enjoy, ever!”
I’ve already told Andrew I’m attending, hope to meet the rest of you there too :-)
Quite.
How well do we think judges do in this respect?
How well do we think the French system does in this respect?
At least where they are allocating tasks among interested parties, Anglo-American trials seem relatively savvy about human nature.
Trial by Jury; Trial by Judge
Juries were originally taken to know something about the relevant events. The modern form of jury trials is a weird hybrid of inherited practices and contemporary political ideals. Like most legal phenomena :-)
That modern juries are inexperienced in criminal matters could be a positive feature. Judges may be jaded by constant exposure to narratives of crime. In wealthy countries, serious crimes are exceptional events. Jurors have reason to pay attention to narratives of such events.
Further, legal experts worry about naive juries being swayed by irrational considerations. This might draw expert attention to cognitive biases, and result in institutional steps to avoid them. Legal experts may be less willing to concede that they themselves are biased. Eliminating juries might mean less expert consideration of hazards to good reasoning in criminal trials.
I think it might be useful to focus on how juries decide cases. For example, juries could be told to hold off on proposing solutions. The jury’s group dynamics could be tweaked to promote rational discussion, perhaps by allocating jurors specific roles in the discussion (eg “your job is to tell the group if they’re assuming something that might not be true”, “your job is to look up information in the transcript and see if we’re remembering it correctly”).
Typo at 11.4: