= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
sixes_and_sevens comments on Rationalist Horoscopes: Low-hanging utility generator? - 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 (81)
I was thinking something similar. Kind of like non-mutually-exclusive, dynamically-assigned star signs based on what you find useful.
That does also suggest that you could use the system prescriptively instead of simply descriptively. If it places you in the "talented slacker" category, and you'd rather be in the "fastidiously disciplined" group, you could opt to receive the Fastidiously Disciplined horoscope, and try to change your working habits to facilitate the Fastidiously Disciplined advice.
It's not obvious to me how to do this and still gather information from the user without interfering with the scores for their chosen category. Having them guess after the fact how well the "slacker" horoscope would have worked for them seems clearly sub-optimal, especially since there's an obvious pressure for them to say that it wouldn't've.
I bet it would be useful to sort people by "what do you most want to improve about yourself?" It seems every LWer has at least one thing (and some, many).
People who choose "nothing" would end up getting horoscopes centering around Dunning-Kruger, confirmation bias, etc.
Yea. Only problem is the groups wouldn't be labelled since they were autonomously discovered and and thus finding it would be a bit hard.
Well, they wouldn't be labelled with meaningful English titles, but you could give them arbitrary names for ease of reference. A bit like actual star signs, only empirically informed.
yea, that'd probably be a good idea.