= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SilasBarta comments on Help Fund Lukeprog at SIAI - 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 (276)
I mean 'evidence' in the Bayesian sense, not the scientific sense. I have significant Bayesian evidence that minicamp was a success on several measures, but I can't know more until we collect more data.
Thanks for providing a list of information we could post. One reason for not posting more information is that doing so requires lots of staff hours, and we don't have enough of those available. We're also trying to, for example, develop a rationality curriculum and write a document of open problems in FAI theory.
If you're anxious to learn more about the rationality camps before SI has time to publish about that data, you're welcome to contact the people who attended; many of them have identified themselves on Less Wrong.
I'm fairly confident that campers got more out of my fashion sessions than what they can learn only from looking at a few fashion magazines.
Cheers,
Luke
Great, so did I! Now communicate that evidence. If it can't be communicated, I don't think you should be so confident in it.
I find that hard to believe. It may take time for the participants to report back, but not for you to tabulate the results.
I'm sorry, but this just sounds like excuse-making. Do you want your audience to be people who just take your word on something like this? I've asked several times for some very simple checks. This claim that you're too busy just doesn't fly.
Then why don't you mention this in your "how to be happy" post, which is also being used as evidence of your productivity? Do you know a single person who has improved fashion to an acceptable level as a result of those magazines?
Not necessary.
Here:
No, it definitely takes time to tabluate the results and write a presentable post about the results. I've personally spent 3 hours on it already but the project is unfinished.
Ah. I may not have communicate this clearly: I think your skepticism concerning the success of the minicamp is warranted because almost no evidence is available to you. You're welcome to not take my word for it. When I have another 5-10 hours to finish putting together the results and write a post with more details about minicamp, I will, but I'm mostly waiting to invest that time until I can do it most profitably, for example when we've gathered more 'after minicamp' data.
I don't understand. The 'How to Be Happy' post was written before I helped run minicamp. And, there are tons of things not mentioned in that post. That post barely scratches the surface of my thoughts on happiness, let alone research on happiness in general.
I doubt magazines is ever the sole input on someone's fashion sense, but yes I know people who have improved their fashion as a result of following magazines (or fashion blogs; same thing basically). Ask Peter Scheyer about this, for example.
Given the large amount of effort it took to get to the miny camps, all four of these could be easily explained by cognitive dissonance.
What evidence would you expect them to have if the "minicamp" was a genuine success? (Edited - thanks for the correction, wedrified!)
Bootcamp? I found the wording Eliezer used fascinating:
Have they actually claimed anywhere here that the bootcamp was successful?
Oops, fixed - thanks!
Honestly, I'm not sure. Having a randomized control group and then looking at actual success would be nice. Even without a good control, one obvious thing to do would have been to do before and after tests of similar questions that test for rational behavior (e.g. whether they can recognize they are engaging in the sunk cost fallacy and things like that). It may be that given the circumstances the best evidence we have is self-reporting like this. If so, it is evidence for the success of the minicamps. But, it is not very strong evidence precisely because it is consistent with a variety of other not implausible hypotheses. This thread has made me more inclined to believe that the minicamps were successful, but had not strongly increased my confidence.
(I disapprove of downvoting the parent (which I just found at '-2'). It continues the same conversation as the previous Silas's posts, pointing out what does look like rationalization. If raising a possibility of interlocutor's rationalizing in defense of their position is considered too rude to tolerate, we'll never fix such problems.)
I suspect that most of the downvotes came from the very last sentence, which struck me as more than a little snarky. "Cheers" might not be necessary, but it is a gesture of politeness and was probably added in an attempt to convey a positive tone (which is important but somewhat tricky in text). I wouldn't say "not necessary" if someone held the door for me, even if it is obviously true.
Agree with you that the actual substance of the post was in no way downvote-worthy.
Because "signing" comments is not customary here, doing so signals a certain aloofness or distance from the community, and thus can easily be interpreted as a passive-aggressive assertion of high status. (Especially coming from Luke, who I find emits such signals rather often -- he may want to be aware of this in case it's not his intention.)
I interpret Silas's "Not necessary" as roughly "Excuse me, but you're not on Mount Olympus writing an epistle to the unwashed masses on LW down below".
Second this.
No. I am very confident the intention was to signal that Luke was not being emotionally affected by the intense criticism for the purpose of appearing to be leader type material, which is substantially not aloofness from the community.
It's not a convincing signal primarily because it's idiosyncracy highlights it for analysis, but I still think the above holds.
Or, in another words, signaling high status -- just like I said.
It may not be aloofness, but it certainly is distance (I used two words for a reason); a leader is, necessarily, separated in some way from those who are led.
I saw lukeprog's signing messages as minor noise and possibly a finger macro developed long ago, so I stopped seeing the signature.
I'd be dubious about assuming one can be certain (where's the Bayesianism?) about what someone else is intending to signal, especially considering that it's doctrine here that one can't be certain of even one's own motivations. How much less certain should one be about other people's?
I would add some further uncertainty if one feels very sure about the motivation driving a behavior that's annoying.
I just looked through several pages of lukeprog's most recent comments, and the only ones that were signed were direct replies to SilasBarta.
Which could just mean that he feels the need to counter hostility with extra friendliess.
That's interesting. Thanks for checking. I still have no idea what lukeprog intended, but my finger macro theory is clearly wrong.
vs.
I didn't read komponisto as necessarily or primarily talking about consciously intended signals.
I get annoyed by people who "sign" posts in the text like that, especially when they do it specifically on replies to me. It really isn't necessary. I'm interested in substance, not pleasantries, as I was three months ago when I asked how the mini-camp was a success.
Hmmm. Fair enough. Didn't mean anything by it.
" I'm interested in substance, not pleasantries"
You are so right. Fuck being nice as it is merely a tool for the irrational.
Sign me up.
Thanks, Vladimir.