= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Tetronian comments on How many people here agree with Holden? [Actually, who agrees with Holden?] - 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 (105)
I maintain that this is a very hard problem. We know what the correct answers to various cognitive bias quizzes are (e.g. the conjunction fallacy questions questions), but it's not clear that aggregating a lot of these tests corresponds to what we really mean when we say "rationality".
Gotta start somewhere. I proposed a step that may or may not lead in the right direction, leveling a criticism that it does not solve the whole problem at once is not very productive. Even the hardest problems tend to yield to incremental approaches. If you have a better idea, by all means, suggest it.
I'm not trying to be negative for the sake of being negative, or even for the sake of criticizing your proposal--I was disagreeing with your prediction that CFAR will have an easier time of meeting GiveWell's requirements.
(I actually like your proposal quite a bit, and I think it's an avenue that CFAR should investigate. But I still think that the verification problem is hard, and hence I predict that CFAR will not be very good at providing GiveWell with a workable rationality metric.)