= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alicorn comments on How to always have interesting conversations - 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 (331)
Ok, then. Here's my attempt.
Intrinsically interesting topics are topics which satisfy the following criteria:
1) The topic cannot be discussed by an adult human of average intelligence without putting in some cognitive effort and attention. (If you can be busy thinking about another topic while discussing it, then it probably isn't intrinsically interesting). If the topic cannot be discussed by a human of average intelligence then this condition is considered to be met.
2) The topic must have objective aspects which are a primary aspect of the topic.
3) The topic must have some overarching theories to connect the topic or have the possibility of overarching theories explain the topic. Thus for example, celebrity divorces would not fall into this category because they are separate unconnected data points. But differing divorces rates in different income brackets would be ok because one could potentially have interesting sociological explanations for the data.
4) The topic must have bridges to many other topics that aren't simply a variation of the topic itself. For example, AI bridges to programming, psychology, nature of human morality, evolution, neurobiology, and epistemology. In contrast, D&D rules don't connect to other topics in any strong way. There are some minimally interesting probability questions that you can ask if you are writing a quiz for an undergraduate probability course but that's about it. Most of the other topics that it is connected to are still variations of the same topic such as say what a society would look like in a universe that functioned under standard 3.5 D&D rules.
Do you exclude D&D content from "D&D rules"? I'd agree that, say, attack of opportunity intricacies don't connect well to anything; but something like how D&D handles werecreatures could connect to all kinds of other stuff in fantasy lit.
When I said rules I was thinking something very narrow like the actual content of the 3.5 SRD which is more or less flavorless. Your point seems to be related to Darmani's criticism about the fourth criterion. This suggests that my criteria for intrinsically interesting as laid out above are serious flawed at least in so far as they fail to capture my intuition for what is intrinsically interesting in that D&D rules shouldn't be considered intrinsically interesting for reasons similar to why the infield fly rule in baseball isn't intrinsically interesting. This conversation makes me suspect that the distinction I am trying to make has no actual validity.
The key, I think, is to distinguish between topics that remind you of other topics, and topics that, upon being comprehended, actually help you understand other topics.
D&D rules remind you of D&D content, which helps you understand fantasy literature. D&D rules, by themselves, though, don't help you understand much of anything else.
Likewise, baseball helps me understand antitrust law enforcement, because baseball has a Congressional exemption to antitrust laws. The exemption has virtually nothing to do with the infield fly rule, though. The infield fly rule reminds me of baseball, but by itself it sheds no light on antitrust law enforcement.
All right, time to beat a strategic retreat. I'm going to stop defending my thesis that JoshuaZ's definition is rigorous.
:) I haven't followed the conversation closely so I don't have a firm opinion on that. Looking back...
I would accept it as a useful definition up to and including the first two sentences of "4". I would replace the remainder with an acknowledgment that what qualifies as an inferential 'bridge' to another topic and even what qualifies as a topic proper is subject. I, for example, read the counter example and it prompted all sorts of curious and potentially fascinating subjects and even prompted pleasant memories of numerous conversations I have had that have been connected using basic probability as a stepping stone.
Even if the evolution of the infield fly rule has been used as an example of how common law naturally forms? No, I'm not making that up. Not anti-trust law, but still pretty close to legal matters.