zero_call

Karma: 165

zero_call 27 Mar 2011 20:40 UTC
7 points
on: Rationality Boot Camp
It’s an interesting idea but I feel very skeptical about the generic plan. Personally, a revulsion for organized/standardized education is what drove me to look at things like Less Wrong in the first place. I think this is fairly common in the community, with many people interested in discussion of akrasia and self-work habits.

Also, considering the informality of ideas like “I want to be a good rationalist”, I would expect this sort of thing to be much more open-ended and unstructured anyways. It doesn’t seem to fit with the idea of a rigid system or a “boot-camp”. It just seems contrary to the idea of rationality and free thinking.

I am also somewhat bemused by the character of the “application”, where apparently qualification relates to reading of the sequences and SIAI in-house literature. I mean the level of self-masturbation is quite remarkable, not to be too cynical, but it seems to be setting the bar fairly low when you’re treating a subject that has been actively discussed for thousands of years.

On the other hand I’m sure this is well intentioned and you have to start somewhere, so I apologize if my remarks seem overly caustic.

zero_call 18 Oct 2010 2:05 UTC
1 point
on: Human performance, psychometry, and baseball statistics
I’ve also read it several times before that physicists and scientists tend to achieve their best results by their mid-thirties. But I don’t think the characterization necessarily works for physics/math/etc. like it does for baseball and athletics. There’s just a major qualitative difference there—e.g., athletes are forced to retire fairly young, whereas teachers are very rarely forced to retire until they are really nearing the end of their viable lifespan. Although I do agree that in something like physics, there is also a component of “mental athleticism”, which just naturally peaks at a medium or youthful age.

Also, for a lot of subjects like physics or math, you probably won’t be able to have a decent mastery of your work until around, say, age 25-35. So the simple fact of the matter is that you will always be past your peak for the majority of your practicing career. It’s a bit sad, but again, I think it just shows that the concept of “peaking” may not be really as broadly applicable for academic areas.

zero_call 29 Sep 2010 19:03 UTC
0 points
in reply to: EStokes’s comment on: Open Thread September, Part 3
In the 419991 times this simulation has run, players have won $1811922 And by won I mean they have won back $1811922 of the $419991 they spent (431%).

zero_call 10 Sep 2010 16:34 UTC
4 points
on: More art, less stink: Taking the PU out of PUA
Mating is good. I am somewhat baffled as to why the “PUA” discussion has had a strong negative connotation. As you say, there’s a ton of benefits for everyone involved, and it serves as a successful, easy-to-test model for many related skill sets. Personally I think the hesitancy to talk about mating and mating development is likely no more than a sort of vestigial organ of society’s ancient associations with religion. It still seems “improper” in ordinary society to talk about how to get into someone’s pants. But I see no reason why the sort of thing like “pick-up-artistry” must be unethical or wrong.

zero_call 10 Sep 2010 16:22 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Morendil’s comment on: More art, less stink: Taking the PU out of PUA
Yes—I agree strongly with this analysis.

zero_call 10 Sep 2010 16:15 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Violet’s comment on: More art, less stink: Taking the PU out of PUA

The whole “happiness limited by shyness/social awkwardness which results in no dates” stereotype does not apply to many people here.

How’s that?

zero_call 6 Sep 2010 21:56 UTC
0 points
in reply to: PhilGoetz’s comment on: Less Wrong: Open Thread, September 2010
Hypertext reading has a strong potential, but it also has negative aspects that you don’t have as much with standard books. For example, it’s much easier to get distracted or side-tracked with a lot of secondary information that might not even be very important.

zero_call 6 Sep 2010 21:50 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Kaj_Sotala’s comment on: Less Wrong: Open Thread, September 2010
It’s not that books take longer to produce, it’s that books just tend to have higher quality, and a corollary of that is that they frequently take longer to produce. Personally I feel fairly certain that the average quality of my online reading is substantially lower than offline reading.

zero_call 5 Sep 2010 20:52 UTC
4 points
in reply to: AlexMennen’s comment on: Something’s Wrong

Any problem in government can only be suboptimal relative to a different set of policies, and as such, criticism of government should come with an argument that a solution is possible.

I think most criticism is based on the implicit understanding that a solution is possible. Otherwise you are basically hiding behind a shield of nihilism or political anarchy or something. It seems overly restrictive to say that any criticism without an auxiliary solution is worthless. Just because you see a problem doesn’t mean you are able to see a solution. I guess it’s a bit like asking all voters to also be politicians.

zero_call 5 Sep 2010 20:43 UTC
4 points
on: Something’s Wrong
I think you’ve touched on something really important when you mention how it is easier to be a strong critic than to have a real, working solution. This is a common retort against strong criticism—“Oh, but you don’t how to make it any better”—and it seems to be something of a logical fallacy.

There is a certain sense of energy and inspiration behind good criticism which I’ve always been fond of. This is important, because criticism seems to be almost always non-conformist or pessimistic in a certain sense, so I think you kind of need encouragement to remind yourself that criticism is generally originating from good intentions.

zero_call 21 Aug 2010 16:20 UTC
1 point
in reply to: timtyler’s comment on: Transparency and Accountability
I would argue that charity is just plain good, and you don’t need to take something simple and kind and turn it into an inconclusive exercise in societal interpretation.

zero_call 17 Aug 2010 17:49 UTC
0 points
on: Your Strength as a Rationalist
This sort of brings to my mind Pirsig’s discussions about problem solving in ZATAOMM. You get that feeling of confusion when you are looking at a new problem, but that feeling is actually a really natural, important part of the process. I think the strangest thing to me is that this feeling tends to occur in a kind of painful way—there is some stress associated with the confusion. But as you say, and as Pirsig says, that stress is really a positive indication of the maturation of an understanding.

zero_call 10 Aug 2010 22:25 UTC
−2 points
in reply to: teageegeepea’s comment on: Book Recommendations
That’s funny. Well, perhaps Foucault may not have been very accurate—I’m not at all qualified to comment. But the book still stands as an amazing work of intellectual writing.

zero_call 10 Aug 2010 2:49 UTC
2 points
on: Book Recommendations
Some fiction....
1. The Color of Magic (Discworld series) -- Terry Pratchett—pretty funny, top British author. The first book (this one) seems to be unmatched by at least the next five in the series, but there are like 30 in the series total, so...
2. Neutron star—Larry Niven—a collection of short stories in Larry Niven’s fascinating future.
3. Fire upon the deep—Vernor Vinge—just the best picture of a future filled with GAI’s that I have read.
4. Neuromancer—William Gibson—incredible action/cyberpunk story, incredible characters. Gets pretty boring at the end though.
Some nonfiction...
1. Madness and civilization—Michael Foucault—exquisite historical/philosophical writing. This book I think shows an example of what it means to be a real scholar.
2. Road to reality—Roger Penrose—an interesting attempt to delve into the exact sciences of physics/mathematics in one, singular drive. Not recommended without extensive prior experience in math/physics, since unfortunately it doesn’t explain so much as shed new light on things you might have already learned. There needs to be more books like this.
3. Die nigger die—H. Rap Brown—this book is written with such passion and intelligent revolutionary spirit, it really had a major impact on me when I read it. (Brown was an important figure in the civil rights movements of the 60′s. )

zero_call 10 Aug 2010 2:31 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Daniel_Burfoot’s comment on: Book Recommendations
Pirsig’s book is brilliant… I recommend that to everyone as well...

zero_call 8 Aug 2010 23:18 UTC
1 point
on: Extraterrestrial paperclip maximizers
AFAIK there’s currently no major projects attempting to send contact signals around the galaxy (let alone the universe). Our signals may be reaching Vega or some of the nearest star systems, but definitely not much farther. It’s not prohibitively difficult to broadcast out to say, a 1000 lightyear radius ball around earth, but you’re still talking about an antenna that’s far larger than anything currently existing.

Right now the SETI program is essentially focused on detection, not broadcasting. Broadcasting is a much more expensive problem. Detection is favorable for us because if there are other broadcasting civilizations, they will tend to be more advanced, and broadcasting will be comparatively easier/cheaper for them.

Edit: If you’re doing directional broadcasting, it’s true that you can go much further. Of course, you are simply trading broadcasting distance for the amount of space covered by the signal. Wikipedia says that Arecibo broadcasted towards M13, around 25,000 light years away. That’s about the same distance as us from the center of the Milky Way.

zero_call 8 Aug 2010 19:07 UTC
2 points
in reply to: SforSingularity’s comment on: Bloggingheads: Robert Wright and Eliezer Yudkowsky
I don’t think this is much of an insight, to be honest. The “anthropic” interpretation is a statement that the universe requires self-consistency. Which is, let’s say, not surprising.

The purpose of natural selection, fine-tuning of physical constants in our universe, and of countless other detailed coincidences (1) was to create me. (Or, for the readers of this comment, to create you)

My feeling is that this is a statement about the English language. This is not a statement about the universe.

zero_call 4 Aug 2010 4:35 UTC
0 points
on: The Threat of Cryonics
Note that one could just as easily come up with a two page article about a “Futuristic Life Meme” which represents the cryonics supporters’ sense of being threatened by death.

The analysis of a new, emerging science deserves critique. From what I can tell, this particular critique is essentially ad-hominem, in that it attempts to attack a belief based on the characteristics of the individuals, rather than their arguments.

It trivializes the fact that there are reasons for being reluctant to invest in cryonics. Lastly, this writing conflates cryonics skepticism with unwillingness to invest.

zero_call 2 Aug 2010 5:07 UTC
6 points
in reply to: SilasBarta’s comment on: Open Thread, August 2010

My take is basically: if their understanding is so deep, why exactly is their teaching skill so brittle that no one can follow the inferential paths they trace out? Why can’t they switch to the infinite other paths that a Level 2 understanding enables them to see? If they can’t, that would suggest a lack of depth to their understanding.

I would LOVE to agree with this statement, as it justifies my criticism of poor teachers who IMO are (not usually maliciously) putting their students through hell. However, I don’t think it’s obvious, or I think maybe you just have to take it as an axiom of your system. It seems there is some notion of individualism or personal difference which is missing from the system. If someone is just terrible at learning, can you really expect to succeed in explaining, for example? Realistically I think it’s probably impossible to classify the massive concept of understanding by merely three levels, and these problems are just a symptom of that fact.

As another example, in order to understand something, it’s clearly necessary to be able to explain it to yourself. In your system, you are additionally requiring that your understanding means you must be able to explain things to other people. In order to explain things to others, you have to understand them, as has been discussed. Therefore you have to be able to explain other people to yourself. Why should an explanation of other individuals behavior be necessary for understanding some random area of expertise, say, mathematics? It’s not clear to me.

And regarding the archetypal “deep understanding, poor teacher” you have in mind, do you envision that they could, say, trace out all the assumptions that could account for an anomalous result, starting with the most tenuous, and continuing outside their subfield?

It certainly seems like someone with a deep understanding of their subject should be able to identify the validity or uncertainty in their assumptions about the subject. If they are a poor teacher, I think I would still believe this to be true.

zero_call 2 Aug 2010 1:36 UTC
2 points
in reply to: SilasBarta’s comment on: Open Thread, August 2010
Ah, OK, I read your article. I think that’s an admirable task to try to classify or identify the levels of understanding. However, I’m not sure I am convinced by your categorization. It seems to me that many of these “Level 1 savants” as you call them are quite capable of fitting their understanding with the rest of reality. Actually it seems like the claim of “Level 1 understanding” basically trivializes that understanding. Yet many of these people who are bad teachers have a very nontrivial understanding—else I don’t think this would be such a common phenomena, for example, in academia. I would argue that these people have some further complications or issues which are not recognized in the 1-2-3 hierarchy.

That being said, you have to start somewhere, and the 0-1-2-3 hierarchy looks like a good place to start. I’d definitely be interested in hearing more about this analysis.