= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Zed comments on Query the LessWrong Hivemind - 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 (89)
Let G be a a grad student with an IQ of 130 and a background in logic/math/computing.
Probability: The quality of life of G will improve substantially as a consequence of reading the sequences.
Probability: Reading the sequences is a sound investment for G (compared to other activities)
Probability: If every person on the planet were trained in rationality (as far as IQ permits) humanity would allocate resources in a sane manner.
0.3; 0.9; 0.00hahahaha001
For 1 and 2:
I think you need to qualify 'quality of life' a bit. Are you asking if the sequences will make you happier? Resolve some cognitive dissonance? Make you 'win' more (make better decisions)? Even with that sort of clarification, however, it seems difficult to say.
For me, I could say that I feel like I've cleared out some epistemological and ethical cobwebs (lingering bad or inconsistent ideas) by having read them. In any event, there are too many confounding variables, and this requires too much intepretation for me to feel comfortable assigning an estimate at this time.
For 3: I think I would need to know what it means to "train someone in rationality". Do you mean have them complete a course, or are we instituting a grand design in which every human being on Earth is trained like Brennan?
1 & 2: Yes, 80% confidence. However I don't think reading the sequences should be a chore. Start with the daily Seq Reruns and follow them for a week or two. If you don't enjoy it, don't read it. The reason I (and probably most people) read the Sequences was because they were fun to read.
3: "Sane" isn't precise enough to answer. However I would say that the allocation would be more sane than currently practiced with 98% confidence.
P(substantial improvement) ~ .2 P(sound investment) ~ .8 P(rationaltopia) ~ .01