pjeby comments on Akrasia, hyperbolic discounting, and picoeconomics - Less Wrong

38 Post author: ciphergoth 29 March 2009 06:26PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (83)

Tags: akrasia

Comments (83)

Sort By: Best

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

Comment author: pjeby 30 March 2009 05:31:05PM 6 points [-]

Pointing out what you suggest would utterly defeat my purpose, and in the long run, would fail to help those I'm speaking to.

You're using a style of teaching that works better on disciples than on random strangers. The strangers appreciate being given more substantial hints that give them a basis for believing that you actually have something useful to say, and for being motivated to think about what you're asking them to think about.

Parables before koans, in other words.

Since those people don't seem capable of grasping my point anyway, maybe you're right that it would have been helpful to just state it directly.

If you state it directly, those who are interested at least have the option of checking into it. Not stating it directly means random wandering for years, wondering whether you're getting anywhere near it.

Having spent years wandering this particular desert for myself, I don't see any reason to make other people do it, too. The least I can do is point out a few landmarks and share a few travel tips.

Comment author: Annoyance comment score below threshold [+] (18 children)

Comment author: MichaelHoward 01 April 2009 01:14:23PM 5 points [-]

I have an unfortunate tendency to initially overestimate the intelligence of people I talk to. Stories and pointers that I consider trivially obvious seem to be too complex for most of the people here.

I suspect you tend to overestimate the transparency of your writing rather than the intelligence of the reader, and tend to underestimate the inferential distance you need to cover to communicate rather than the complexity of what you're communicating.

Comment author: Cyan 30 March 2009 06:03:32PM * 5 points [-]

I have an unfortunate tendency to initially overestimate the intelligence of people I talk to. Stories and pointers that I consider trivially obvious seem to be too complex for most of the people here.

I'd say what you're overestimating is how much like you other people are. (Perhaps you consider that statement redundant.)

Comment author: ciphergoth 30 March 2009 06:08:54PM * 0 points [-]

It could also straightforwardly result from all kinds of self-overestimation.

Comment author: Annoyance comment score below threshold [+] (7 children)

Comment author: GuySrinivasan 30 March 2009 06:26:52PM 6 points [-]

Very simple! Write a post explicitly explaining why certain ideas are communicated only indirectly for good reasons! And if you think that idea is itself communicated only indirectly for good reasons... sounds to me like a too-convenient coincidence.

Comment author: pre 30 March 2009 10:54:16PM 3 points [-]

"why certain ideas are communicated only indirectly for good reasons" by Pre.

Rather than use an obscure example like Zen, we'll use a fairly simple idea: Learning how to catch a ball.

Now I can directly explain to you how a ball is caught. I can describe the simultaneous ballistic equations that govern the flight of the ball, instruct you on how to alter your idea of where the ball will land based on Bayesian reasoning given certain priors and measured weather conditions.

These things are almost certainly needed if you're gonna program a computer to catch a ball.

If you're gonna teach a human to catch a ball though, you're just going to have to throw a lot of balls at them and tell 'em to keep theirs eyes on it.

I suspect most Zen koans are just poor jokes, but if there's a point to 'em it's the same as the point of throwing those balls at a student catcher.

Just to get you to practice thinking in that way. Because you, as a human, will become better at the things you practice.

If the thing you are practising is spouting existential bullshit this may or may not be a good idea. ;)

Comment author: thomblake 02 April 2009 09:41:16PM 2 points [-]

These things are almost certainly needed if you're gonna program a computer to catch a ball.

Incidentally, that's not how we tend to program computers to do things like catch balls (successfully). We instead build a sort-of general learning system attached to grasping and visual systems, and then teach it how through observation.

Comment author: Dustin 30 March 2009 11:42:16PM 3 points [-]

But first explaining how to catch a ball won't keep the person from then learning how to catch it.

Comment author: Annoyance 31 March 2009 04:04:35PM 7 points [-]

If you say you're teaching someone how to catch balls, and then provide them with sequences of equations, there's a dangerous meta-message involved. You're conveying the (unspoken, implicit) idea that the equations are what's needed to make the student good at catching.

If the student then believes that because they've mastered the equations they've learned how to catch, they'll go out into the world - and fail and fail and fail.

One real-life example of this may be people who attain high status in martial arts training schools and then get themselves slaughtered in actual fights, where the only rules are those of physics and people have chosen optimized strategies for reality.

Comment author: loqi 31 March 2009 01:44:12AM 3 points [-]

In fact, such an explanation can help to assure them that catching a ball is possible before they commit to practicing.

Comment author: Annoyance 01 April 2009 02:38:06PM 1 point [-]

I would expect their real-life experience to be sufficient to convince them that it's possible to catch a ball.

More importantly, if they're not sure that's possible, they shouldn't be looking for someone to teach them how to do it. They should be trying to determine if it's possible before they do anything else.

Comment author: JulianMorrison 30 March 2009 08:49:56PM 5 points [-]

You're arrogant. Also obnoxious. And completely failing at Zen. If this were a koan the teacher would be chasing you out of the temple with a stick, thwacking you as you run. What on earth do you expect to gain by insulting people's intelligence and berating them for not getting koans (and ignoring the evidence that they got, shrugged, and said "so?"). When has sneering ever been a technique of instruction? You should demote yourself to bottom-most neophyte and restart from sitting.

pjeby comments on Akrasia, hyperbolic discounting, and picoeconomics - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (83)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (83)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login