= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on Good Quality Heuristics - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (112)
Good quality heuristics would indeed be useful.
But I thought heuristics were about experience-based techniques, of the type 'when X occurs, there's a pretty good chance that Y happens as well'. The example heuristics do not really follow that pattern.
'Sign up for cryonics' does not seem like a heuristic at all - how does it follow from experience? Also, for me to trust them, heuristics have to be supported by facts -- either my own experiences or some trusted other party. I'd only use Dale Carnegie lessons after some own experimentation with them - no matter how plausible they sound. There are simply too many untrue 'heuristics' not be a bit skeptical -- think about phrenology for example.
Now I'll think about some heuristics...
If heuristic is adaptive, it takes a form depending on experience, more optimal than a fixed procedure, sometimes successful, sometimes terribly wrong. Simpler kinds may not be adaptive.
You use a heuristic because it's useful, and "proof" of usefulness may involve any connection between concepts at all, only extreme cases of such connections constitute direct experience.