= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Why CFAR? The view from 2015 - 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 (63)
Couple of notes...
What is that metric?
I think this is a dangerous path to take. If you stay on it, I suspect that soon enough you'll come to the conclusion that absence of appropriate "caring" is irrational and should be fixed. And from there it's only a short jump and a hop to declaring that just those people who share your value system are rational. That would be an... unfortunate position for you to find yourselves in.
I could very well be in the grip of the same problem (and I'd think the same if I was), but it looks like CFAR's methods are antifragile to this sort of failure. Especially considering the metaethical generality and well-executed distancing from LW in CFAR's content.
What does that mean?
book
Basically, systems that can improve from damage.
The question isn't about what the word means in general but in what way CFAR's methods are supposedly antifragile.
I know what the word means, kinda (Taleb isn't particularly coherent). I don't understand how CFAR's methods can improve from damage.
If I understand the position correctly it's that people who don't care about what they are working on won't be working effective and procrastinate.
In HPMOR Harry beats Voldemort because the has access to the superpower of caring and having something to protect.
I don't think that there a push to declare people who feel that they have the "wrong" things as somthing to protect as irrational. Even if there would be such a push the goal of the research in rationality isn't to label people are rational or irrational.
No, I don't think so. I think the "deep caring" CFAR talks about is only a particular kind of caring.
Let's get some people who very deeply care about money and large diamonds and arriving to parties in Monaco on their own private jet (or a superyacht, at least). They do care. Just not about the right thing.
Recently I had a conversation with a person from the LW sphere, who felt a bit empty. At the end of that conversation the solution was that the person comitted to making a plan to increase their professional skills and earn more money in the future.
I think that kind of caring is completely fine and I wouldn't expect anybody in CFAR to object to that solution.
As far of the people who go to Monaco with their private jet, they do care. With the
rationality is winningframe, you would also call people who earn enough money to have a private jet rational. A person who doesn't care deeply about money won't work 80 hours per week at an investment bank.there is a kind of “deep epistemic rationality” that doesn’t change one’s goals, but does help one make actual contact with the deep caring that already exists within a personThat's not about saying that people's goals are wrong but about actually making them care towards working towards their goals instead of suffering from akrasia.It wouldn't surprise me if they didn't want to publish it because some of the aspects of the measure might be gameable, allowing people to pretend to be super useful by guessing the teacher's password.
GIven that the use it to justify the claim that CFAR made progress in the last year, it seems that the relevant people already know the metric.