Eliezer_Yudkowsky 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: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 29 March 2012 11:00:58PM 11 points [-]

Well, and now the question "How can we teach the skill Check Consequentialism?" has degenerated into an erudite debate on pirates vs. ninjas.

I have never, ever been tempted to say this before on LW but WELCOME TO REDDIT.

Edit: The conversation seems much more intelligent than average Reddit, but I still think we're solving the wrong problem here.

Edit 2: And now, no longer feeling as encouraged by the 150 comments I saw when I checked back in.

On the plus side, I'll concede we've demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that "pirates vs. ninjas" can be an argument -generator for all audiences.

Comment author: thomblake 29 March 2012 11:39:54PM 3 points [-]

puh-lease. There were pirates vs. ninjas debates on the Internet long before Reddit existed.

You happen to have carved out a small portion of the Internet, a medium that aside from porn is primarily for pirates vs. ninjas debates, and declared it's for some other purpose. That doesn't mean you're allowed to be surprised when pirates vs. ninjas debates happen.

And this site's software based on Reddit. Is "WELCOME TO REDDIT" even worth saying when there's a "powered by reddit" icon on the bottom-right of the site?

Now, back to the local version of pirates-vs-ninjas, which sometimes looks deceptively like discussion of rationality...

Comment author: APMason 29 March 2012 11:44:21PM 2 points [-]

You happen to have carved out a small portion of the Internet, a medium that aside from porn is primarily for pirates vs. ninjas debates, and declared it's for some other purpose. That doesn't mean you're allowed to be surprised when pirates vs. ninjas debates happen.

Is he allowed to be surprised when lesswrong porn happens?

Comment author: thomblake 29 March 2012 11:48:09PM 4 points [-]

I think porn itself has somehow managed to stay off Less Wrong long enough to warrant surprise.

But no, it's not warranted to believe that porn about Less Wrong does not exist. Rule 34.

Comment author: gwern 30 March 2012 01:32:55AM 7 points [-]

I've joked in the past about writing YudkowskyxBostrom slash fics; I swear to Bayes, if people keep annoyingly discussing LW porn, I will write it!

Comment author: MixedNuts 30 March 2012 11:27:36AM 5 points [-]

Please include a threesome with Vassar.

Comment author: Multiheaded 02 April 2012 10:10:12AM 1 point [-]

Pass the brain bleach.

Comment author: thomblake 30 March 2012 02:13:40AM 0 points [-]

I'd write it, but I'm too busy working on that fic where Harry has to marry Draco to save someone from Azkaban.

Comment author: thomblake 30 March 2012 01:56:37AM 0 points [-]

Corollary to Rule 35. You have to now.

Comment author: Blueberry 30 March 2012 12:18:37AM 2 points [-]

It's not porn, but did you see Yvain's drawing?

Comment author: thomblake 30 March 2012 12:23:43AM 0 points [-]

Thanks, I hadn't seen that. Though for maximal thread derailment, the image really should've appeared right in your comment.

Comment author: CronoDAS 02 April 2012 10:54:41AM 1 point [-]

Are you trying to spoil our fun?

Comment author: thomblake 30 March 2012 01:05:43AM 1 point [-]

Besides, it's not like we're having really ridiculous thread-derailing discussions. It's not like anyone's tried to claim something insane, like that Twilight Sparkle is the best pony, or a plane on a treadmill will be able to take off, or that billy goats are not delicious.

Comment author: wedrifid 30 March 2012 03:37:29AM *  0 points [-]

or a plane on a treadmill will be able to take off,

Reading this prompted me to ask myself a similar question:

Could wind powered plane on the ground traveling directly downwind take off? My answer is yes, and science is awesome! but I expect I'd get into arguments about it with even my educated friends who would say "no".

Comment author: thomblake 30 March 2012 03:45:20AM 1 point [-]

Perhaps even better, a wind-powered car can travel faster than the wind downwind! link

Comment author: wedrifid 30 March 2012 03:58:14AM *  0 points [-]

Perhaps even better, a wind-powered car can travel faster than the wind downwind! link

This seems to imply that you have some other mechanism for the plane to take off than by harnessing that very mechanism with enough efficiency and elegance that it can generate lift to take off engine free, powered by wind, with the direct force of the wind actually counting against it. Either that or you evaluate engineering coolness very differently.

Comment author: wedrifid 30 March 2012 03:47:45AM 0 points [-]

Besides, it's not like we're having really ridiculous thread-derailing discussions.

I know you are mostly just building up to a "Twilight Sparkle" joke but I'm going to express agreement with this anyway. The main way that this thread has gone off topic is in as much as the skill that daenyrs is testing and training isn't 'consequentialism' it is a different rationalist skill.