AdeleneDawner comments on Rationalist Horoscopes: Low-hanging utility generator? - Less Wrong

26 Post author: AdeleneDawner 18 May 2011 09:52PM

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

Comments (81)

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

Comment author: AdeleneDawner 20 May 2011 09:29:02PM *  0 points [-]

That seems like the most likely way of dividing it, to me. I'm not entirely comfortable with endorsing that model (I don't know enough about it, basically), but it looks plausible at least. (I'm not entirely sure we're going to divide it up at all, at this point, but the code's written in such a way as to at least allow it.)

I suppose it'd be interesting to allow the different M-B groups to optimize the quotes that the groups get separately, rather than having all the votes go into the same database - I don't think it'd be all that hard to set that up, and it'd give us some interesting data on M-B.

Comment author: badger 20 May 2011 10:03:50PM *  0 points [-]

I don't think there is good reason to split according to M-B groups. If you want to split according to personality, the Big 5 factors are the current consensus. Even then though, I don't know how advice would be specialized to low agreeableness individuals, for instance.

The broad categories come to my mind are

  • Epistemic
  • Instrumental/anti-akrasia/motivational
  • Social
  • Creativity/seeing with fresh eyes
  • Quotations

You could either bundle these with the instructions to pick a single one to focus on or if you have room for customization, let people pick whether they want a high or low amount of each in their stream.