orthonormal comments on The Meditation on Curiosity - Less Wrong

36 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 06 October 2007 12:26AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (93)
Tags: bayesian self_deception belief_update truth curiosity

Comments (93)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: MrHen 01 February 2010 09:58:26PM 4 points [-]

There are a few places in what you're doing where a more focused approach would be helpful, though. For example, I would define an outcome and a test procedure: what are you attempting to change, and how will you know if you changed it? This alone will help you trim distractions a bit.

Agreed. I posted Easy Predictors as an attempt to get input from the community about easy to test predictor beliefs but didn't get much of a response. I am keeping track of smaller things that have easy turnaround times to see if it is possible to do this sort of thing informally.

This does not apply to outcomes of belief creation, however. Is there a good way to test things like that? Or am I misinterpreting your suggestion? Or... ?

The rest of your comment is interesting to me because it directly focuses on the prediction of trauma due to dropping Theism (and related subjects). I hadn't really thought about the details of the fallout beyond key trouble spots. Is this a fair two-sentence reduction of your suggestions?

Looking at similar past events that carry the same emotional trauma due to dropped beliefs can give me the ability to question the validity of my fear of the future by comparing and contrasting the differences. In addition, this process may reveal a solution to the projected trauma by preventing it from happening or weakening its impact.

Am I close?

Comment author: orthonormal 02 February 2010 01:56:04AM 1 point [-]

Mr. Hen, I'm going to break custom and say something that may be regarded as poisoning the well. It's my conclusion that P.J. Eby is more or less a quack trying to drum up support for his psychological services, and that (in such an important matter as this) you shouldn't be trying to understand his jargon, let alone trying to take his advice.

His persistent trumpeting of perceptual control theory, which couples grandiose claims of precision with a complete lack of experimental support, is telling, and it's not the only red flag I've seen...

Comment author: MrHen 02 February 2010 02:42:58AM 1 point [-]

I am still willing to at least listen and dialog with pjeby, but I find it interesting that this comment is at +3 so quickly. Thank you for the warning (and concern). It does have an impact. (The karma swing helped.)

Comment author: pjeby 02 February 2010 04:10:21AM 7 points [-]

trying to drum up support for his psychological services

Right, that's why I recommended two books written by other people. You have brilliantly exposed my clever scheme:

  1. Offer assistance, while recommending books by other authors
  2. ????
  3. Profit!!!
Comment author: wedrifid 02 February 2010 09:29:51AM *  3 points [-]

Mr. Hen, I'm going to break custom and say something that may be regarded as poisoning the well.

I should note, now that the parent is at -1, that my vote does not represent disapproval of well poisoning, just disagreement in this instance. Pjeby's practical advice seems well founded to me and I believe it will benefit those willing to receive it.

I probably agree with you when it comes to the rigid use of PCT models and of his custom jargon. I find PJ's practical experience more useful than his abstract theorizing. I would not vote except, as you say, the matter is important. Even more so when someone's reputation is at stake.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit