= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ModusPonies comments on Thoughts on the January CFAR workshop - 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 (73)
Upvoted for writing this before reading the main post. Is that the sort of technique they taught you?
To repeat my request to Qiaochu: would you be willing to follow up in a year or two and tell us whether the effects lasted? If you commit now, and use Boomerang to remind yourself, I would be grateful.
It's related to a point that Julia made in her "Evaluating Advice" unit about contamination of evidence. The idea is to avoid anchoring people to a particular answer when you ask them questions. See also this xkcd comic.
Upvoted out of interest. I try to do this myself, but it never seems to work as well as I expect it should; without an anchor, people frequently just try to guess what I want to hear instead of outputting their own opinion.
Or at least I think they do. It is inherently difficult to verify that sort of thing.
For boring reasons I don't feel like using Boomerang to remind myself, but if you message me in a year (and I still have an active LW, and insert other obvious caveats here) I'll write the post and/or post significant comments on the retrospectives of other attendees.
ETA
Short answer yes. Long answer, it is the obvious converse of some of Julia's techniques for soliciting useful advice on the other hand they did not directly suggest it for giving good advice, and I suspect I would have thought to do it even if I had missed that session. Its a pretty obvious idea (at least to me).
I have set a Boomerang reminder to myself. I will ask you in a year. Thanks.