loqi comments on Rationality Quotes: October 2009 - Less Wrong

7 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 22 October 2009 04:06PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (276)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: loqi 22 October 2009 07:34:19PM 6 points [-]

So if you are surprised to find a $20 bill in your couch, your disappointment at having lost $20 some time in the past is equal to your pleasure at now having $20 more than you did a moment ago?

My current level of ignorance is a fact of life, I already know that there must be things that I'm wrong about. How is finding out something in particular that I am wrong about anything but a positive outcome?

Comment author: wedrifid 23 October 2009 04:25:36AM 4 points [-]

So if you are surprised to find a $20 bill in your couch, your disappointment at having lost $20 some time in the past is equal to your pleasure at now having $20 more than you did a moment ago?

That depends rather a lot on my dopamine levels and thought patterns. I gain much more pleasure from finding cash than I am disappointed at losing it. Hang on... Excuse me. Going for a walk around my house with my wallet open.

Comment author: Technologos 24 October 2009 07:45:47AM 1 point [-]

Careful... diminishing returns still apply ;)

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 23 October 2009 03:53:49AM 1 point [-]

So if you are surprised to find a $20 bill in your couch, your disappointment at having lost $20 some time in the past is equal to your pleasure at now having $20 more than you did a moment ago?

roughly, yes.

My current level of ignorance is a fact of life, I already know that there must be things that I'm wrong about. How is finding out something in particular that I am wrong about anything but a positive outcome?

If your mistakes are independent, then correcting one of them doesn't (much) correct your estimate of how many more mistakes you have to correct. Say you have 21 beliefs with 95% confidence and an argument clarifies a random one of them. You still have 1 expected wrong belief. By independence, we might as well say it's belief #1 that gets clarified. People who were wrong about it end up the same as people who were right about it. Yes, they gained more information, but they were really just unlucky to start with less information. This is exactly the lottery/inheritance model.

Yes, your ignorance is a fact, but it's not a fact accessible to you. The argument decreases your estimate of your ignorance by the same amount, regardless of whether you win or lose. If you happen to know how ignorant you are, how many items you're wrong about, then the situation is different, but that's a lot less realistic than independence.

Comment author: loqi 23 October 2009 08:02:46AM 1 point [-]

So if I understand the point you're making: Losing an argument provides enough evidence of your prior ignorance to prevent any net gain in your expectation of your own overall knowledgeability, at least relative to winning the argument.

I don't disagree, but I don't know why I'd care to base an emotional response on this kind of evaluation. I'm not fretting over my absolute position on the axis of knowledge, I'm just hill climbing. It's the first derivative that my decisions affect, not the initial constant.