= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lukeprog comments on Do people think Less Wrong rationality is parochial? - 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 (196)
I think that Eliezer basing 1/4 of The Sequences on articles from the MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences / Judgment under Uncertainty had a lot to do with it.
It occurs to me, now that you point this out, that my earlier comment about "mainstream cogsci" may have been misleading.
I was indoctrinated into cogsci as an MIT Course IX major in the 80s, and really that's what I think about when I think about the field. I have no idea if MIT itself is considered "mainstream" or not, though.
As someone who has taken cogsci classes more recently than that, I don't think the timing of the research is that relevant or anything else. Your earlier comment seems to summarize decently what aspects are not part of mainstream cogsci (or possibly even mainstream thought at all).
Between those and Jaynes' Probability Theory, Pearl's Causality, and Drescher's Good and Real you have quite a lot of it.
AIUI Eliezer didn't actually read Good and Real until the sequences were finished.
Really need to read both of these books.
EDIT: On second thought, which sequences were these?
All the parts on heuristics and biases and Bayesianism and evolutionary psychology.