wedrifid comments on SotW: Check Consequentialism - Less Wrong

38 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 29 March 2012 01:35AM

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

Comments (311)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 29 March 2012 08:08:42AM *  5 points [-]

I think an "Improv to Rationality" class would be very fun and interesting. I don't know how WELL the games would work to teach the desired skills, but I definitely think it would make the lessons more memorable, AND you'd be able to add the phrase "Team-Building" to your class description. You can sell anything if you promote it as "Team-Building." :P

A game that would teach how to look for alternative options (see parent) could be "New Choice". In this game, a scene is played out, with the moderator occasionally demanding a new choice(s) from the players. (Video Example (includes 15 sec commercial)).

Not only would it teach about not becoming too set on a current course of action, but could have the lesson of: "When thinking up alternative actions, don't just stop at one or two. Instead imagine a moderator yelling "New Choice!" at you. Keep thinking up new alternatives until you get to crazy-land (i.e. "Here's a cat from my pants")

Another sub-skill mentioned, was the ability to recognize bad rationalizations (i.e. "I will feel bad if I quit something I put so much effort into."). Perhaps one way to learn to recognize these, is to do bad rationalization ON PURPOSE, to see what it feels like. A good game for that is "Challenge in a Minute".

In this game, a two-sided silly debate is chosen, such as pirates v. ninjas, or Coke v. Pepsi. All the players line up and challenge each other's arguments. Arguments are supposed to start somewhat seriously ("Ninjas are sneakier") and devolve over the course of the game ("I don't like his pants"). (It's easier to just watch a video, than explain the rules.)

Participants could then brainstorm what it felt like to come up with the bad rationalizations. I would expect answers like: Grasping at straws, Searching your brain for things to support your position, Being proud of clever retorts, etc. Participants could then ACTUALLY try to answer the debate question (ninja v. pirates, or whatever) in teams, and then discuss what it felt like to actually try to find the answer. I would expect answers like: Defining the problem, Not knowing the answer, Looking for sources, Being willing to change my mind (debate question must be sufficiently silly that most people would be willing to change their mind.)

Note: I'll admit that I worked backwards for this. Instead of thinking "What's the best way to teach consequentialism?", I thought "It would be awesome to do an Improv Rationality class. How can I relate some improv games to the lessons we're trying to teach?" So this solution probably isn't optimal.,..But it IS fun!

Comment author: wedrifid 29 March 2012 12:23:09PM -2 points [-]

Being proud of clever retorts, etc. Participants could then ACTUALLY try to answer the debate question (ninja v. pirates, or whatever) in teams, and then discuss what it felt like to actually try to find the answer.

Short exercise. Does anyone actually think pirates stand a chance against professionally trained assassins? I thought the only reason people defend pirates is because it's a way to say both of them (or their identity-memes) are just so damn cool.

Comment author: wedrifid 29 March 2012 05:12:56PM 0 points [-]

Short exercise.

I was mistaken. I'm amazed how much debate the question prompted here even with this framing. I really thought it was just a closed question.

Comment author: thomblake 29 March 2012 05:34:21PM 3 points [-]

I'm amazed how much debate the question prompted here even with this framing.

I'm amazed at your amazement.

I'd have expected at least this much out of any such silly comparison, even here. Try:

  • Raptors vs. Jesus
  • Twinkie vs. cockroach
  • Star Trek vs. Pop Tarts

Or any other conflict between trochees.

Comment author: wedrifid 29 March 2012 05:39:36PM -1 points [-]

Most of your amazement can be explained by you thinking that that 'pirates vs ninjas' belongs in the same reference class as:

  • Raptors vs. Jesus
  • Twinkie vs. cockroach
  • Star Trek vs. Pop Tarts

That seems utterly ridiculous. Are you being disingenuous or are you serious?

Comment author: thomblake 29 March 2012 06:46:16PM 1 point [-]

I'm being serious. See http://xkcd.com/856/

I think the relevant reference class is "trochees with a 'vs.' between them", and you can find many such engaging debates on the Internet. I'm skeptical that anyone would care to compare pirates and ninjas if they were called something else.

Comment author: Alejandro1 29 March 2012 07:13:33PM 2 points [-]

I don't think the trochee pattern is so critical to these debates. Cavemen vs. astronauts is a notorious counterexample.

Comment author: pedanterrific 06 April 2012 02:38:36AM 0 points [-]

I wonder why no one ever phrases it cavemen vs. spacemen.

Comment author: countercheck 30 March 2012 01:12:53AM 0 points [-]

Cavemen is a trochee. Astronauts is a dactyl, which is why it's less funny, but still close enough to a trochee.

Comment author: thomblake 30 March 2012 01:16:46AM 2 points [-]

Well cavemen are well-known in the literature for their pterodactyl-defeating skills, so I suppose that would generalize to other dactyls.

Comment author: thomblake 29 March 2012 07:26:39PM -1 points [-]

Oddly, I don't think I've encountered anything vs. astronauts before.

Comment author: thomblake 30 March 2012 12:34:25AM -1 points [-]

I retract my statement. I've seen the entirety of Angel.

Comment author: wedrifid 30 March 2012 07:11:19PM *  0 points [-]

I retract my statement. I've seen the entirety of Angel.

Come to think of it the only times I've heard the debate is between Angel and Spike and Bones and Booth. I hadn't caught the easter egg until now.

Comment author: Vaniver 29 March 2012 07:18:36PM 2 points [-]

I was mistaken. I'm amazed how much debate the question prompted here even with this framing. I really thought it was just a closed question.

Like thomblake, I'm amazed at your amazement, but on a different track. Unless you're an expert in the histories of navies, espionage, and other miscellany, why would you expect your intuition to both identify closed questions and the correct answers?

Comment author: wedrifid 30 March 2012 07:08:51PM *  -1 points [-]

Like thomblake, I'm amazed at your amazement, but on a different track. Unless you're an expert in the histories of navies, espionage, and other miscellany, why would you expect your intuition to both identify closed questions and the correct answers?

The experts you appeal to are indeed far more impressive than I and I wouldn't dream of claiming their status as my own. That said the fact that very impressive people can answer trivial questions too doesn't make questions non-trivial. (Or useful, for that matter.)