= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
tut comments on Open Thread: February 2010 - 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 (738)
Upvoted. Although I am curious as to how you will measure the status hits that various people take from being wrong.
I'd assumed there was standard ways of measuring it along the lines of a typical psychology experiment: involve two groups of people in two different scenarios (wrong, and wrong with retreat). Then quiz the audience on their opinion of the person, their intelligence, work with them,whether you would trust them to perform their area of expertise, be their friend, etc.
However I can't find much with a bit of googling. I'll have a look into it later.
Thanks. That sounds good, but it is an experimental program, not something you'd observe on Less Wrong.
I expect that you could get more complex results than yes or no. Like with some primes or some observers preparing a retreat would help, with others it wouldn't, and in some contexts you'd lose status and credibility directly for trying to prepare a retreat.
True. We are interested in communities where truth-tracking is high status, so that cuts down the number of contexts. We would also probably need to evaluate it against other ways of coping with being incorrect (disassociation e.g. Eliezer(1999), apology etc) and see whether it is a good strategy on average.