Nick_Tarleton comments on Accuracy Versus Winning - Less Wrong

12 Post author: John_Maxwell_IV 02 April 2009 04:47AM

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

Comments (72)

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

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 02 April 2009 03:38:34PM *  2 points [-]

Where do you find in that link the suggestion that rationalists should be less confident?

"Beware lest you become attached to beliefs you may not want."

"Surrender to the truth as quickly as you can."

One who sees that people generally overestimate themselves, and responds by downgrading their own self-confidence, imitates the outward form of the art without the substance.

Not necessarily. If there is no known way to correct for a bias, it makes sense to do the sort of gross correction I described. For example, if I know that I and my coworker underestimate how long my projects take but I'm not aware of any technique I can use to improve my estimates, I could start by asking my co-worker to do all the estimates and then multiply that estimate by two when telling my boss.

Is there are known way of correcting for human overconfidence? If not, I think the sort of gross correction I describe makes sense from an epistemically rational point of view.

Someone who "feels" it is their "duty" to do something is someone who already does not want to do it, so by definition the second has motivation and the first does not. But these are imaginary people and this is fictional evidence. A real answer to the rhetorical question might be found by surveying mathematics students, comparing those who stay the course and those who drop out. I do not know what such a survey would find.

Do you deny that believing you had the answer to a mathematical problem and only lacked a proof would be a powerful motivator to think about mathematics? I was once in this situation, and it certainly motivated me.

Someone who "feels" it is their "duty" to do something is someone who already does not want to do it, so by definition the second has motivation and the first does not.

The way I used "duty" has nothing to do with disliking a thing. To me, "duty" describes something that you feel you ought to do. It's just an inconvenient fact about human psychology that telling yourself that something's best makes it hard to do it. Being epistemically rational (figuring out what the best thing to do is, then compelling yourself to do it) often seems not to work for humans.

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 03 April 2009 02:03:05AM 1 point [-]

"Beware lest you become attached to beliefs you may not want."

"Surrender to the truth as quickly as you can."

AFAICT, this means to seek disconfirming evidence, and update if and when you find it. Nothing to do with confidence.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 03 April 2009 04:58:41AM *  3 points [-]

Disconfirming evidence makes you less confident that your original beliefs were true.

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 04 April 2009 07:21:07AM 1 point [-]

If you find it; though this is nitpicking, as the net effect usually will be as you say. Still, this is completely different from the unconditional injunction to be less confident that the post suggests.