Jayson_Virissimo comments on Minicamps on Rationality and Awesomeness: May 11-13, June 22-24, and July 21-28 - Less Wrong

24 Post author: AnnaSalamon 29 March 2012 08:48PM

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

Comments (239)

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

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 30 March 2012 01:15:51PM *  7 points [-]

SilasBarta:

7b) Is there any evidence I'll be glad I went that a Christian retreat could not produce just as easily?

Eliezer_Yudkowsky:

Apparently the one-year followup is currently underway - a Minicamp attendee volunteered to do it. This is pretty strong evidence of itself - people almost never volunteer for things and do them.

Yes, people usually don't do that. On the other hand, it isn't implausible that someone who just returned from a "Christian retreat" and who is "on fire for God" to "volunteer for things and do them". SilasBarta isn't merely asking for evidence that the camp provides benefits; he is asking for a reason to think it has benefits that exceed those that can be obtained at other kinds of events (specifically, a "Christian retreat").

Comment author: TheOtherDave 30 March 2012 02:42:45PM 2 points [-]

he is asking for a reason to think it has benefits that exceed those that can be obtained at other kinds of events

Or, rather, that exceeds that that can be so obtained. That is, SB's7b relates to the relative quality of the reason for belief, not the relative quality of the benefits.

But you're right that (for example) Christian retreats routinely get people to volunteer to do things and do them, so the simple fact of a Minicamp attendee doing so is not by itself strong evidence of a difference between the two events.

OTOH, there may well be sufficient differences between the two communities that the similarity of results is such evidence. That is, if event X1 gets result Y1 from a member of community Z1, while X2 gets Y2 from a member of Z2, the similarity of Y1 and Y2 given significant relevant differences between Z1 and Z2 suggests equally significant differences between X1 and X2. If Z2 is consistently more inclined to cooperate than Z1, and Y1/Y2 demonstrate willing cooperation, I conclude that X1 is more effective at inducing cooperation than X2.

(OTOOH, a lot depends on why Z2 cooperates more reliably. If it turns out that cooperation is primarily caused by the quality of Z2's events, then that's evidence against there being a significant difference between X1 and X2.)

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 31 March 2012 06:46:54AM 0 points [-]

Yes, after I said "After Minicamp you will be able to explain the math behind what you do", thus answering the original question, whereupon I was directed to answer other questions instead.