= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Peter_de_Blanc comments on Averaging value systems is worse than choosing one - 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 (56)
I would not expect value systems in the wild, produced by evolution, to have low (i.e. negative) IC. I would expect them to have IC close to 0. This is because if you have two values that have a high correlation, then you may as well delete one of them. You get the most information from your value system if your values are uncorrelated.
That's a good point. But it relates more to "deep values", by which I mean the things you would find after you do factor analysis on the surface values you would enumerate if someone asked you to list your values.
What I posted applies more to surface values.
There was a paper in Science this year claiming that nearby cortical neurons should have low correlation, because that increases the signal's information content. There was another paper this year in Science claiming that nearby cortical neurons should have high correlation, because that amplifies the strength of the signal.