Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: EStokes 04 August 2015 11:38:35PM 0 points [-]

Ah, I also wish there were some posts about the practical parts of signing up. An overview of options, like Alcor or CI, standby service, life insurance costs, whether to consider relocation to Phoenix or whatnot, whether to get one of those bracelet things or something, and for god's sake let the guide not be so US-centric.

Though possibly this masterpost-thing exists and I haven't heard of it, or my unusual distaste for not having every detail planned out beforehand is biasing me.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 August 2015 11:36:26PM 0 points [-]

Whether a hypothesis turns out to be a better match for reality than another hypothesis does not depend on how humans define "likely".

Comment author: Lumifer 04 August 2015 11:34:56PM *  0 points [-]

The correct course of action...

You are not talking to LW. You are talking to, let me remind you, "a group of very irate (biological, conventional, mainstream, cis, heterosexual, not-quite-sexually-liberated) women". You try telling them to think of the dick-owner as a lesbian and in the best case neither them nor any of their friends set foot in you gym ever again. In the worst case you'll find yourself talking to cops in the near future and to a large bunch of lawyers soon after that.

Comment author: EStokes 04 August 2015 11:25:43PM *  0 points [-]

So basically what your saying is that it is possible for a man to "really" be a woman even though not only all the physical/biological evidence points that way, but he isn't even aware of it? This raises even more questions whether you definition of "really a woman" corresponds to anything in reality.

Hm, good question! I'd say: in the same way one might discover one prefers, say, some obscure flavor of ice cream one hadn't tried before to one's previous favorite of chocolate ice cream. Does that mean that the person's favorite wasn't really chocolate before? It was, but also they "actually" preferred something else... I think it comes down to how the individual's narrative of their past or somesuch.

So you agree that the claim that my explanation "necessitates a lot of people lying" that you made in the grandparent is BS. That raises the question why did you make it?

I think we must've talked past each other; I'm having trouble connecting the dots. In any case, to try to elucidate my meaning: In the past, being transgender was more and more widely low-status. If transgenderism isn't real, then it becoming less low-status on average means that more and more people would lie about being transgender. If it is real, then it becoming less low-status on average means that more and more people would be exposed to the concept and feel safer in coming out.

It's similar, the difference being that "gay" properly refers to a person's behavior rather than an intrinsic property. And yes, the current attempt to claim that "gayness" is an intrinsic property is similarly problematic.

I see. I might have a different (though not diametrically opposed) idea on this, but afaict that disagreement doesn't have a bearing on the main idea of this discussion at the moment so for time and clarity's sake I think I'll not take this up, if you're amenable.

Comment author: eli_sennesh 04 August 2015 11:10:29PM 0 points [-]

That sounds like a very badly done transhuman society.

Comment author: FrameBenignly 04 August 2015 10:58:57PM 0 points [-]

If you're not reading about futurism, it's unlikely to come up. There aren't any former presidential candidates giving lectures about it, so most people have never heard of it. Politics isn't about policy as Robin Hanson likes to say.

Comment author: btrettel 04 August 2015 10:27:53PM *  1 point [-]

I'm not convinced that revival of most cryopreserved people will ever be possible in any reasonable sense, even if we have strong AI. Brain damage sets in quickly, so to me you have to take it on faith that being preserved when they can is adequate. Add on a host of other things which you have to take on faith about the entire process, and it seems closer to a scam than the fountain of youth to me. The entire scheme seems to be wishful thinking. I find it hard to estimate the probabilities involved with this because it's so speculative. With that being said, I gave about a 2% chance of a cryopreserved human being revived before 2040, mostly because I don't know what the future holds. (Note that this prediction is fairly weak. This is a 2% probability that at least 1 human will be revived. If there are 100 attempts and 1 is a success then that's enough, but the track record would be pretty bad. I don't anticipate there will be many attempts by that date, though.)

Assuming I would be revived if preserved, I don't see any reason to believe I'll come out unscathed. I would rather be not revived at all than to be revived severely mentally retarded, for example.

With that being said, I'm not opposed to the idea and give it serious consideration, but I believe maximizing my own QALYs in more established ways like physical fitness is much more important. Also, it's worth noting that I don't believe immortality is necessarily a good goal in isolation. If I were immortal, I'd want my memory erased every couple hundred years or so just to keep things interesting (I assume if cryonics works then this is likely possible with no ill effects. Might also be possible to reverse wiping someone's memory if they store it somewhere.).

I recently had the realization that cryo might actually have some unintended consequences. I can think of one which would need to be addressed before I'd sign up: risk compensation. That is, because one has signed up for cryo they might feel less risk and do more dangerous things. A few quick Google searches suggests cryo people might not be aware of this issue, so I don't know what their response might be.

Maybe cryo believers are paranoid enough about dying that they are unaffected or less affected by risk compensation. This is possible, but I see being unaffected as unlikely given that irrationality affects us all. To give an example of how this might manifest, people signed up for cryo might be more likely to be out of shape than similar people who are not signed up for cryo. There's no clear evidence either way, but I'd be interested in seeing where the truth lies before considering signing up.

Comment author: Slider 04 August 2015 10:27:19PM 0 points [-]

Why would the mapping between the language the hypotheses are framed in have impact on which statements are most likley to be true? The article mentions that in domains where the correct hypotheses are complex in the proof language the principle tends to be anti-productive. There is no guarantee that the language is well suited to describe the target phenomenon if we are allowed to freely pick the phenomenon to track!

Wouldn't also any finite complexity class only have finitely many hypotheses in it and wouldn't those also be in a finite numbered index in it? The problem only arises for infinite complexity hypotheses. And it could be argued that if the index is a hyperinteger it can still be a valid placing.

With surreal probability it would be no problem to give an equal infinistemal probability to an infinite list of hypotheses.

Comment author: torekp 04 August 2015 10:26:40PM 0 points [-]

But humans define "likely" in part via considerations of simplicity. This doesn't guarantee that the long run average of percentage correct conclusions will decline with complexity. But it makes it more likely.

Comment author: Jiro 04 August 2015 10:05:54PM 0 points [-]

"You'd allow a lesbian in the room who is excited by staring at your tits. The correct course of action in that case is to just prohibit the staring, rather than to prohibit the person's presence in the room. Do that here too."

(Although now that I think of it that might not work because the same reasoning means they should allow ordinary men in the room too.)

Comment author: DataPacRat 04 August 2015 10:04:06PM 0 points [-]

Seems to be an established conversation around this point

Well, I guess coming up with an idea a century-ish old could be considered better than /not/ having come up with something that recent...

Comment author: DataPacRat 04 August 2015 10:02:06PM 0 points [-]

I think I once heard of a variant of this, only using degrees of kinship instead of social connections. Eg, direct offspring and full siblings are discounted to 50%, grandchildren to 25%, and so forth.

Comment author: iarwain1 04 August 2015 09:53:25PM 0 points [-]

The question is, how do I tell (without reading all the literature on the topic) if my argument is naive and the counterarguments that I haven't thought of are successful, or if my argument is valid and the counterarguments are just obfuscating the truth in increasingly complicated ways?

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 04 August 2015 09:33:53PM -1 points [-]

The obvious objections to this seem to be (1) ewww (which I suggest is not an argument)

It makes the women uncofortable. This is the same type of argument you're using that we should endulge the tannys' delusions and there are many more actual women than trannys (by four orders of magnitude and that's assuming current claims are taken at fase value), so do the utility calculation.

and there are obvious risks of harm from trans women trying to use men's bathrooms too.

First, see my comment above about the relative numbers of the two groups. Also, the harm to trans "women" is lower since most men aren't interested at gawking at (or harrasing, etc.) fake "women". The ones who are tend to be gay, which is potentially a sepertate problem, but one that we have either way.

Iand for many purposes someone who looks more or less female,

So is a lion with stripes painted on it a tiger?

presents as female, and considers themself female is "closer" to stereotypical-female than to stereotypical-male whatever is in their chromosomes or their pants.

You do realise this is an empirical question and not just a piece of attire you can where to be "pro-trans"?

Someone in this situation is some way from the centre of either the "women" or the "men" cluster, regardless. It seems to me that in fact there is no such thing as the similarity cluster labelled "women" because (have I mentioned this already?) there are any number of similarity clusters corresponding to different notions of similarity, and different notions of similarity are called for in different contexts.

This is not an argument, it's an appeal to nihilism. Yes, you can arbitarily define a set and declare it a "similarity cluster", that doesn't make it so. This is similar to the psychiatric patient I mentioned above who defined the set consisting of himself, Jesus, and John Lenon, and declared it a similarity cluster.

If you pick some particular notion of similarity based on (say) gross anatomy, sex chromosomes, hormone levels, and ability to beget and/or bear children, then indeed our hypothetical person is in the "men" rather than the "women" cluster.

Not to mention physical strength, a bunch of psychological traits, etc.

But do you really think there's a delusion there?

Honestly, in this case there is probably less delusion and more BS (in the sense of the saying things without caring for their truth value) for the sake of getting another 15 minutes of fame.

Comment author: WalterL 04 August 2015 09:12:24PM 3 points [-]

The chess-board is the world, the pieces are the phenomena of the universe, the rules of the game are what we call the laws of nature. The player on the other side is hidden from us. We know that his play is always fair, just and patient. But also we know, to our cost, that he never overlooks a mistake or makes the smallest allowance for ignorance.

Thomas Huxley, Collected Essays Volume 3 Science and Education A Liberal Education (p. 82)

Comment author: ChristianKl 04 August 2015 09:07:47PM 1 point [-]

If the internal culture of a company doesn't match it's external culture often bad.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 August 2015 09:06:31PM -2 points [-]

It turns out there's an extremely straightforward mathematical reason why simplicity is to some extent an indicator of high probability.

And what exactly does that bit of mathematical wankery with infinite lists have to do with trying to figure out which maps are better in our reality? Does it have any practical application?

Comment author: ChristianKl 04 August 2015 09:02:16PM 0 points [-]

I was thinking mainly along the lines of using it in regular combat

US drones in Pakistan usually don't strike in regular combat but strike a house while people sleep in it.

indiscriminately killing protesters

If you want to kill protesters you don't need drones. You can simply shoot into the mass. In most cases that however doesn't make sense and is no effective move.

If you want to understand warfare you have to move past the standard spin.

I wasn't aware of this, do you have a source on that?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-drones-strikes-target-rescuers-pakistan

Regardless, the number of civilian casualties from drone strikes is definitely too high, from what I know.

The fact that civilian casualties exists doesn't show that a military violates ethical standards. Shooting on rescues on the other hand is a violation of ethical standards.

From a military standpoint there's an advantage to be gained by killing the doctors of the other side, from an ethical perspective it's bad and there's international law against it.

The US tries to maximize military objectives instead of ethical ones.

Comment author: ChristianKl 04 August 2015 08:56:17PM 0 points [-]

How about adding the source?

Comment author: Manfred 04 August 2015 08:54:06PM 3 points [-]

It turns out there's an extremely straightforward mathematical reason why simplicity is to some extent an indicator of high probability.

Consider the list of all possible hypotheses with finite length. We might imagine there being a labeling of this list, starting with hypothesis 1, then hypothesis 2, and continuing on for an infinite number of hypotheses. This list contains the hypotheses capable of being distinguished by a human brain, input into a computer, having their predictions checked against the others, and other nice properties like that. In order to make predictions about which hypothesis is true, all we have to do is assign a probability to each one.

The obvious answer is just to give every hypotheses equal probability. But since there's an infinite number of these hypotheses, that can't work, because we'd end up giving every hypothesis probability zero! So (and here's where it starts getting Occamian) it turns out that any valid probability assignment has to get smaller and smaller as we go to very high numbers in the list (so that the probabilities can all add up to 1). At low numbers in the list the probability is, in general, allowed to go up and down, but hypotheses with very high numbers always have to be low probability.

There's a caveat, though - the position in the list can be arbitrary, and doesn't have to be based on simplicity. But it turns out that it is impossible to make any ordering of hypotheses at all, without having more complicated hypotheses have higher numbers than simpler hypotheses on average.

There's a general argument for this (there's a more specific argument based on universal turing machines that you can find in a good textbook) that's basically a reflection of the fact that there's a most simple hypothesis, but no "most complex" hypothesis, just like how there's no biggest positive integer. Even if you tried to shuffle up the hypotheses really well, you have to have each simple hypothesis end up at some finite place in the list (otherwise they end up at no place in the list and it's not a valid shuffling). And if the simple hypotheses are all at finite places in the list, that means there's still an infinite number of complex hypotheses with higher numbers, so complexity still decreases for large enough places in the list.

Comment author: Manfred 04 August 2015 08:44:55PM 1 point [-]

The truth is usually simple, but arguments about it are allowed to be unboundedly complicated :P

Which is to say, I bet Chalmers has heard this argument before and formulated a counterargument, which would in turn spawn a counter-counterargument, and so on. So have you "proven" anything in a publicly final sense? I don't think so.

Doesn't mean you're wrong, though.

Comment author: RomeoStevens 04 August 2015 08:44:54PM 0 points [-]

From the article.

an inherent bias towards simplicity in the natural world

uhhhh....

Comment author: gwern 04 August 2015 08:35:41PM 0 points [-]

Yes; it's strongly implied that being an upload is great, but however Deva has been captured by a tyranny which deliberately keeps resources restricted in order to force ems to scramble for survival and compliance with the central government in order to stay alive, and which reacts to events by doubling down on control & liquidation of dissenters and outside elements. (So you could easily read this as a critique of North Korea, with Deva=Pyongyang.) Which is entirely true and I expect that an upload society could very easily tilt into an even more extreme totalitarian tyranny between the evolutionary pressures and direct modification of minds.

Comment author: ChristianKl 04 August 2015 08:34:42PM 0 points [-]

Because you decide to accept the simplest solution. At least that's true for most people. Very few people reason with probabilities.

Comment author: WalterL 04 August 2015 08:27:29PM *  2 points [-]

Context (Hacker is Britain's Prime Minister, Sir Humphrey is his chief subordinate, the Russians are their enemy in the Cold War)

Double Context: This quote is from "Yes Prime Minister", a british comedy show.

Sir Humphrey: Bernard, what is the purpose of our defence policy?

Bernard: To defend Britain.

Sir Humphrey: No, Bernard. It is to make people believe Britain is defended.

Bernard: The Russians?

Sir Humphrey: Not the Russians, the British! The Russians know it's not.

Comment author: WalterL 04 August 2015 07:57:10PM 0 points [-]

If we're rewriting the quote I'd say that Power's action doesn't even involve a gun. She glances at Science, sees that labcoat + talk = belief + status, and puts on a labcoat and starts talking. Because she is optimizing for status rather than truth the things that Power declares are much more comfortable to believe, and if pressed for proof she just points out that people who wear labcoats brought us prosperity, and who are you to question them?

Comment author: Lumifer 04 August 2015 07:54:01PM 0 points [-]

Occam's Razor is a heuristic, that is, a convenient rule of thumb that usually gives acceptable results. It is not a law of nature or a theorem of mathematics (no, not an axiom either). It basically tells you what humans are likely to find more useful. It does not tell you -- and does not even pretend to tell you -- what is more likely to be true.

Comment author: James_Miller 04 August 2015 07:36:53PM *  0 points [-]

lower utility globally,

Strongly disagree. The more people who sign up for cryonics the less weird it becomes, so your joining Alcor would have a positive externality. Two enormous problems facing mankind are death and short-term thinking. Widespread cryonics membership would mitigate both.

Comment author: cousin_it 04 August 2015 07:28:24PM *  1 point [-]

Wikipedia on Chalmers, consciousness, and zombies:

Chalmers argues that since such zombies are conceivable to us, they must therefore be logically possible. Since they are logically possible, then qualia and sentience are not fully explained by physical properties alone.

By using similar arguments, I can prove so many exciting things! I can imagine a world where gravity is Newtonian but orbits aren't elliptical (my math skills are poor but my imagination is top notch), therefore Newtonian gravity cannot explain elliptical orbits. And so on.

Am I being a hubristic idiot for thinking I can disprove a famous philosopher so casually?

Comment author: Lumifer 04 August 2015 07:26:39PM -1 points [-]

and tell me one obvious thing that it lacks

One?

A clue X-)

Comment author: advancedatheist 04 August 2015 06:50:38PM 0 points [-]

The cryonics movement needs more people with clinical medical backgrounds involved, but then it also needs people with practical business experience.

I will give you a business intelligence test. Look at just the home page of the website for this startup cryonics organization in Oregon, and tell me one obvious thing that it lacks - just on the home page:

http://oregoncryo.com/

Comment author: Slider 04 August 2015 06:38:31PM 0 points [-]

I do not personally live by those three categories but I have found use for making triggers for when action needs to happen based on observable need for them,

The confusing thing is when the same action results in benefit occasionally and in drawback occasionally. When you group the occasions into a benefit group and a drawback group you can occasionally see a feature in common in one that isn't present on the other. That is a good reason to focus on that feature out of the possible multitudes of features situations have.

When there are multiple competing principles that give contradictory advice their assumptions might not all be fulfilled to the same extent. A might be good and B might be good but are A and B always good at the same time?

Comment author: bbleeker 04 August 2015 06:38:15PM 0 points [-]

If they could even just revive a mouse, that'd help a lot already.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 August 2015 06:24:52PM 1 point [-]

I could be wrong.

To be wrong, first you need to take a falsifiable position :-)

I really don't think what we're looking at is an increase in mandatory enforcement of politeness-and-decency

Well, that's the issue in dispute here. It's a complex problem and requires analysis too serious for a few LW comments, but I don't think you can simply handwave it away. In the UK in particular the recent focus on criminalizing certain kinds of speech is quite troubling.

Comment author: Slider 04 August 2015 06:19:04PM 0 points [-]

If you have information that simplicity works good in the field of application then the success should be attributed to this information rather than simplicity per se. There are no free lunches and the prior information about the fittness of simple theories is your toll for being able to occam your way forward.

The point is that two theories of incomparable theory branches can't be ordered with occam but one being an elaboration of another (ie up or down the same branch) can. Other uses are better understood as unrelated to this idea but still falsely attributed to it.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 August 2015 06:13:40PM *  0 points [-]

I think that if someone is generally presenting as female we should let them use women's bathrooms if they want to. The obvious objections to this seem to be (1) ewww (which I suggest is not an argument)

Let me reformulate this as an argument :-D

Imagine a gym, or an athletic club. A pre-op transsexual presenting as a female shows up and you direct him/her to the women's locker room and showers. Soon after that a group of very irate (biological, conventional, mainstream, cis, heterosexual, not-quite-sexually-liberated) women show up and demand to know what someone with a dick is doing in their showers staring at their tits. Your response?

Comment author: Illano 04 August 2015 06:03:12PM 0 points [-]

For story purposes, using a multi-tiered variant of utilitarianism based on social distance could lead to some interesting results. If the character were to calculate his utility function for a given being by something Calculated Utility = Utility / (Degrees of Separation from me)^2, it would be really easy to calculate, yet come close to what people really use. The interesting part from a fictional standpoint could be if your character rigidly adheres to this function, such that you can manipulate your utility in their eyes by becoming friends with their friends. (e.g. The utility for me to give a random stranger $10 is 0 (assuming infinite degrees of separation), but if they told me they were my sister's friend, it may have a utility of $10/(2)^2, or $2.50) It could be fun to play around with the hero's mind by manipulating the social web.

Comment author: gwern 04 August 2015 06:02:48PM 1 point [-]

Emotiv EPOC give-away:

So back in March 2013 or so, another LWer gave me a "Special Limited Edition Emotiv EPOC Neuroheadset"/"Research Edition SDK". Idea was that I could maybe use it for QS purposes like meditation or quantifying mental effects of nootropics. EEG headsets turn out to be a complicated area with a lot of unfamiliar statistics & terminology in it, and so I never quite got around to making any use of it; so it's been sitting on my desk gathering dust ever since.

I'm not doing as much QS stuff these days and it's been over two years without a single use, so it's time I admit that it's unlikely I'm going to use it any time soon as well.

I might as well ship to another American LWer who might get some use out of it. If you're interested, email me.

Comment author: gjm 04 August 2015 05:58:06PM 0 points [-]

So do you support letting trans-"women" play on women's sports teams and use women's bathrooms?

I think sports teams and sporting organizations should make their own decisions. I don't know what's actually best overall; I think transgender people are rare enough that it wouldn't make a big difference in practice to most . My guess is that the best policy for smaller informal sports teams and organizations is to let 'em in, that the best policy at the highest levels where a lot is at stake is to say women's teams/competitions are only for people who are anatomically female by some criterion or other, and in between I'm less sure but lean towards a let-'em-in policy in the absence of compelling evidence that it would do actual harm.

I think that if someone is generally presenting as female we should let them use women's bathrooms if they want to. The obvious objections to this seem to be (1) ewww (which I suggest is not an argument) and (2) that this introduces a danger to women from predatory men dressing up as women in order to sneak into their bathrooms. I find #2 unconvincing because when I try to imagine scenarios where there's an actual difference in the harm done I can't think of one that's actually plausible, and because whatever bathroom policy we adopt there are going to be trans people and they are going to need to use bathrooms, and there are obvious risks of harm from trans women trying to use men's bathrooms too.

Of course, for purposes of those Bayesian deductions trans-people are much closer to their biological than their claimed gender.

I don't think that's clear at all. As I've said before in this discussion, what counts as "closer" depends greatly on context, and for many purposes someone who looks more or less female, presents as female, and considers themself female is "closer" to stereotypical-female than to stereotypical-male whatever is in their chromosomes or their pants.

That he's in the similarity cluster labelled "women"

Someone in this situation is some way from the centre of either the "women" or the "men" cluster, regardless. It seems to me that in fact there is no such thing as the similarity cluster labelled "women" because (have I mentioned this already?) there are any number of similarity clusters corresponding to different notions of similarity, and different notions of similarity are called for in different contexts.

If you pick some particular notion of similarity based on (say) gross anatomy, sex chromosomes, hormone levels, and ability to beget and/or bear children, then indeed our hypothetical person is in the "men" rather than the "women" cluster. But do you really think there's a delusion there? If you ask, say, Bruce->Caitlyn Jenner "What chromosomes do you have?", the answer might be "It's none of your business" or "Who cares?" but it won't be "XX, of course, because I'm a woman".

It seems to me that the actual difference between you and, say, Jenner is a disagreement about what notion of similarity to use. How is that a delusion on a par with thinking you're Jesus?

Comment author: DanielLC 04 August 2015 05:55:00PM 0 points [-]

There are various ways to get infinite and infinitesimal utility. But they don't matter in practice. Everything but the most infinite potential producer of utility will only matter as a tie breaker, which will occur with probability zero.

Cardinal numbers also wouldn't work well even as infinite numbers go. You can't have a set with half an element, or with a negative number of elements. And is there a difference between a 50% chance of uncountable utilons and a 100% chance?

Comment author: DanielLC 04 August 2015 05:47:23PM 0 points [-]

How badly could a reasonably intelligent follower of the selfish creed, "Maximize my QALYs", be manhandled into some unpleasant parallel to a Pascal's Mugging?

They'd be just as subject to it as anyone else. It's just that instead of killing 3^^^3 people, they threaten to torture you for 3^^^3 years. Or offer 3^^^3 years of life or something. It comes from having an unbounded utility function. Not from any particular utility function.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 August 2015 05:45:12PM 4 points [-]

Not only this is general-purpose moralizing, the quote has nothing to do with Native Americans. As far as I can see, it was made up by the well-known evangelical minister Billy Graham.

Comment author: DanielLC 04 August 2015 05:44:57PM 1 point [-]

The first is certainly good for teaching math, but in general they both have advantages and disadvantages. It's good to have a lot of methods for solving problems, but it's also important to have general methods that can each solve many problems.

Comment author: gjm 04 August 2015 05:37:55PM -1 points [-]

They are not support, they are examples.

OK, understood.

Firstly, baseless discrimination is market-inefficient.

True, but (1) if the group you're discriminating against is a minority then the inefficiency may not be large and (2) if your other (potential) customers happen to approve of your discrimination then the gain in their custom may outweigh the loss in the others'.

You may recall the recent case of a pizza place -- was it called Memories Pizza? -- whose owners made the mistake of admitting on camera that they would be reluctant to cater for a hypothetical same-sex wedding. They got a lot of adverse comments. They closed up shop. They put up a page on GoFundMe or some such site. ... And then they got, I would guess, comfortably more money from donations in a few weeks than the profits their pizza restaurant could have produced in, say, a year.

What proportion of stores [...]

Understood; as I said, "This argument works only in so far as there's enough prejudice [...] that the groups in question really do suffer substantial systematic harm". I don't think the issue is that if it were legal then all the shops would put up "No members of group X" signs and members of group X would starve and freeze to death; it's more an Overton window thing. Some shops would put up those signs; lots of employers would quietly decline to hire people they thought were black/Jewish/female/gay/trans; it would be universally understood that discrimination against those people is normal; people would feel virtuous for being somewhat less prejudiced against them than average; and so members of the group in question would face a constantly harder life than the rest of us. A law saying "nope, not allowed to do that" about the most blatant kinds of discrimination, I think, reduces the subtler kinds too.

I could be wrong. You refer to a "fair amount of literature"; are there studies out there that investigate this and find that anti-discrimination laws don't have any such effect?

I'm not talking about the sign of the argument to the function, I'm talking about the nature of the function itself.

As you say, intolerance is perennial. It seems to me that what's changed over the last few decades is the sign (or phase, or something) of the argument, not the function. In other words, I really don't think what we're looking at is an increase in mandatory enforcement of politeness-and-decency, it's a change in what sort of thing counts as politeness-and-decency.

And if the victims of that now are (e.g.) the opponents of same-sex marriage, it seems clear to me that they have it a lot better than the previous victims did. Brendan Eich can't be CEO of Mozilla, apparently, but at least he can get married if he wants and no one is sending him to jail or forcing on him a course of chemical treatment designed to change his opinions. Life is more comfortable for opponents of same-sex marriage now than it was for gay people ten years ago, and vastly more comfortable than it was for gay people sixty years ago. So: yeah, intolerance is perennial, and its distribution is changing, but there's a good case to be made that there's less of it now and its consequences are milder than before.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 August 2015 05:24:11PM 0 points [-]

And so, both people cooperate.

Both people who are identical and know they are identical cooperate.

Now do the exercise for two people who are different.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 August 2015 05:17:59PM 0 points [-]

For, e.g., medical purposes Jenner is much nearer the female than the male cluster.

Why do you believe this to be so?

Comment author: Lumifer 04 August 2015 05:05:10PM 1 point [-]

I don't think these examples are good support

They are not support, the are examples. I am not trying to persuade you to start worrying, I'm explaining my position.

what you disapprove of here may not be only enforced politeness-and-decency

Well, yes, of course. I've been trying to generalize the issue out of the intently-peering-at-the-genitals niche. Yes, I would feel similarly about a mixed-race couple.

If such discrimination were legal, then people belonging to these groups might find themselves at a substantial systematic disadvantage;

I think you are mistaken about that. There is a fair amount of literature on the topic, but let me make two brief points. First, baseless discrimination is market-inefficient. Even besides potential social backlash, if you refuse to serve a portion of your market and your competitor is fine with it, guess who has the advantage in the notoriously ruthless darwinian capitalist world. Second, take a look around. Imagine that it becomes legal for store owners to discriminate against, say, Indians and Pakistanis. What proportion of stores do you expect to put up signs "No Paks allowed" in their windows?

The second example (Brendan Eich) concerns social rather than legal mandatoriness, and I think this is something that varies considerably between different bits of society. E.g., the owners of Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby have espoused attitudes exactly opposite to the ones you say are becoming mandatory and they are at no risk of being ousted for them.

I'm not talking about the sign of the argument to the function, I'm talking about the nature of the function itself.

Owners of Chick-Fil-A do not (as far as I know) have an ideological litmus test that must be satisfied before allowing people to advance to high positions in the company. Mozilla, evidently, does. A great deal of the US academia, to pick a relevant example, does, too.

My concern is with intolerance, not with which particular sin is deemed worthy of excommunication and burning at the stake.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 04 August 2015 04:39:57PM *  0 points [-]

The appropriate conclusion depends on how real and how severe the danger is. (Of course it needn't be danger as such, and I take it you wouldn't claim there's danger associated with letting male-anatomy people compete in nominally-all-female sporting competitions.)

ChristianKI's example concerned people deemed enough of a threat to others to need locking up in prison. This is an unusually dangerous and (probably) unusually dishonest population. Outside that context, the balance will be different.

So do you support letting trans-"women" play on women's sports teams and use women's bathrooms? I notice, you avoided actually addressing the question.

To transgender people "gender actually matters" much more of the time than you'd think.

In the sense that people make implicit Bayesian deductions based on peoples gender all the time, this is true. Of course, for purposes of those Bayesian deductions trans-people are much closer to their biological then their claimed gender.

I notice that you have so far declined to answer my original question: What actual false beliefs (expressed in terms of anticipated experiences) does this person have, in your opinion?

That he's in the similarity cluster labeled "women" for one thing. Yes, you can steelman his position to be conpletely non-falsifiable if you want, I don't believe this is actually what most of them are claiming (as seen by the fact that they do insist on, e.g., using women's facilities, playing in women's sports, being celebrated as "female" CEO's.)

Comment author: HungryHippo 04 August 2015 04:35:06PM *  3 points [-]

Indeed, this story from Polya emphasises the necessity of trying different angles of attack until you have a breakthrough (via squeak time.com):

The landlady hurried into the backyard, put the mousetrap on the ground (it was an old-fashioned trap, a cage with a trapdoor) and called to her daughter to fetch the cat. The mouse in the trap seemed to understand the gist of these proceedings; he raced frantically in his cage, threw himself violently against the bars, now on this side and then on the other, and in the last moment he succeeded in squeezing himself through and disappeared in the neighbour's field. There must have been on that side one slightly wider opening between the bars of the mousetrap ... I silently congratulated the mouse. He solved a great problem, and gave a great example.

That is the way to solve problems. We must try and try again until eventually we recognize the slight difference between the various openings on which everything depends. We must vary our trials so that we may explore all sides of the problem. Indeed, we cannot know in advance on which side is the only practicable opening where we can squeeze through.

The fundamental method of mice and men is the same: to try, try again, and to vary the trials so that we do not miss the few favorable possibilities. It is true that men are usually better in solving problems than mice. A man need not throw himself bodily against the obstacle, he can do so mentally; a man can vary his trials more and learn more from the failure of his trials than a mouse.

Comment author: gjm 04 August 2015 04:21:07PM 0 points [-]

similar logic applies

The logic here takes the form: If we treat this person as female, then such-and-such danger arises that wouldn't if we treated them as male; here's a course of action that attempts to balance mitigating the danger to others against the interests of the person in question.

The appropriate conclusion depends on how real and how severe the danger is. (Of course it needn't be danger as such, and I take it you wouldn't claim there's danger associated with letting male-anatomy people compete in nominally-all-female sporting competitions.)

ChristianKI's example concerned people deemed enough of a threat to others to need locking up in prison. This is an unusually dangerous and (probably) unusually dishonest population. Outside that context, the balance will be different.

in every case where gender actually matters

To transgender people "gender actually matters" much more of the time than you'd think. (How often does the state of your knee joints actually matter? If your knees are in good shape, hardly ever -- at least in that you hardly ever need to attend to it. But anyone who's had knee trouble can tell you that actually it matters all the time to them.)

the deluded person feels better if everyone plays along with his delusion

I notice that you have so far declined to answer my original question: What actual false beliefs (expressed in terms of anticipated experiences) does this person have, in your opinion?

Comment author: SilentCal 04 August 2015 04:17:23PM 1 point [-]

I wrote http://lesswrong.com/lw/jx6/on_irrational_theory_of_identity/ a while ago to explain more-or-less why I'm not signed up and hopefully draw some counterarguments, but the latter didn't really materialize.

The tl;dr is that my System I currently doesn't care much if I'm signed up for cryonics or not, while it cares a great deal about being seen as weird. To System II it's clear that signing up for cryonics would be more consistent, but probably also more selfish (I'd estimate a double-digit percentage of the money I don't spend on cryonics will go to charity). So I could override my intuitive preference, but what I'd accomplish by doing so is higher utility for myself and lower utility globally, and why would I put in effort to do that?

Comment author: gjm 04 August 2015 04:11:16PM 0 points [-]

I would seriously argue that "closer to" in this context can mean multiple things. For, e.g., medical purposes Jenner is much nearer the female than the male cluster. For some others it's the other way around; e.g., the only pictures I've seen I would classify as nearer "typical female" than "typical male". For some others it's more complicated. For some others I simply have no idea (I have never met Jenner nor heard her[1] voice).

It seems to me that the great majority of the interactions people have with one another are ones where the impact of gender is (for those of us with the good fortune not to be hypersensitive to such things) rather small, and in those cases a definition that requires me to call a person a man even though the person in question is called Caitlyn, is wearing a dress, and plainly considers herself[1] a woman seems to me to be doing a poor job at cutting reality at its joints, and I will take the alternative even if that needs some adjustment when I am prescribing drugs for them or contemplating having sex with them.

(The real problem, of course, is that reality doesn't exactly have joints and that so far as it does we're quibbling over which side of the cut a piece of cartilage belongs on. Er, my apologies to any transgender or intersex folks reading this; I would not compare you to a piece of cartilage in other contexts!)

[1] I have attempted to phrase things so as to avoid question-begging via pronouns etc., but here I couldn't find any way that wasn't awfully clumsy. Sorry about that.

Comment author: Dagon 04 August 2015 04:02:19PM 1 point [-]

Inconsistency shows that there is at least one error, it does not imply (actually, it gives some evidence against) that either calculation is correct. You can't choose which one to adjust to fit the other, you have to correct all errors. Remember, consistency isn't a goal in itself, it's just a bit of evidence for correctness.

For the specific case in point, the error is likely around not being numerical in the individual steps - how much better is the universe with one additional low-but-positive life added? How much (if any) is the universe improved by a specific redistribution of life-quality? Without that, you can't know if any of the steps are valid and you can't know if the conclusion is valid.

Comment author: Jiro 04 August 2015 03:09:58PM 1 point [-]

Most people are bad at converting their beliefs to numerical probabilities, are bad at estimating low probabilities in general, and will pick numbers in a certain range that sound low enough even when the number that is actually consistent with their beliefs is much lower. It's like vegetarians who say "well, maybe chickens are sentient enough that they have 1% of the moral value of humans". Almost nobody who asserts that would then save 101 chickens in preference to 1 human.

Comment author: Jiro 04 August 2015 03:04:42PM 0 points [-]

Objection 6: The people who revive me might torture me.

Question 6: If you knew an intelligence explosion would occur tomorrow would you commit suicide today to avoid the chance of being tortured?

If you knew an intelligence explosion would occur tomorrow, the possibility of being tortured would certainly reduce the expected utility of that intelligence explosion, but in order for suicide to be appropriate, it would have to reduce the expected utility below zero. However, for it to be a factor in cryonics, it needn't reduce the expected utility below zero, it only need reduce the expected utility below the cost of the cryonics.

Several of the arguments in this list have the same problem. For question 7, I'd certainly prefer getting a painless medical procedure to dying of cancer if the medical procedure has no cost. It's easy for the utility I get from the procedure to exceed the cost if the cost is zero. If the procedure had a cost, however, I would have to decide whether the procedure is worth it (particularly if the procedure only has a chance of working, thus reducing the expected utility I get from it).

Comment author: advancedatheist 04 August 2015 02:41:49PM *  0 points [-]

The lottery model doesn't apply to cryonics because the individual cryonicist's choices in the here and now bear on the probability of success. Cryonicist Thomas Donaldson, Ph.D. in mathematics, wrote about this back in the 1980's.

http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/probability.html

Comment author: Sarunas 04 August 2015 02:41:08PM *  0 points [-]

I don't know the exact context of this particular quote, but George Pólya wrote a few books about how to become a better problem solver (at least in mathematics). In that context the quote is very reasonable.

Comment author: gjm 04 August 2015 02:37:14PM 1 point [-]

There are mathematical structures that allow for comparison but not arithmetic. For instance, a total order on a set is a relation < such that (1) for any x,y we have exactly one of x<y, x=y, y<x and (2) for any x,y,z if x<y<z then x<z. (We say it's trichotomous and transitive.)

The usual ordering on (say) the real numbers is a total order (and it's "compatible with arithmetic" in a useful sense), but there are totally ordered sets that don't look much like any system of numbers.

There are weaker notions of ordering (e.g., a partial order is the same except that condition 1 says "at most one" instead of "exactly one", and allows for some things to be incomparable with others; a preorder allows things to compare equal without being the same object) and stronger ones (e.g., a well-order is a total order with the sometimes-useful property that there's no infinite "descending chain" a1 > a2 > a3 > ... -- this is the property you need for mathematical induction to work).

The ordinals, which some people have mentioned, are a generalization of the non-negative integers, and comparison of ordinals is a well-order, but arithmetic (albeit slightly strange arithmetic) is possible on the ordinals and if you're thinking about preferences then the ordinals aren't likely to be the sort of structure you want.

Comment author: advancedatheist 04 August 2015 02:36:10PM 0 points [-]

Personality certainly plays a role in the early-peaking badass. But then an introverted person thrown into a lot of sticky situations that he has to figure out and survive through could wind up with a pretty impressive résumé, and in effect become a different kind of badass.

Comment author: DanArmak 04 August 2015 02:21:36PM 1 point [-]

If you create a novel way of solving problems, you should spend some time solving lots of previously unsolved problems with it, rather than trying something new every time. Only start looking for new solutions after exhausting the low-hanging fruit.

Comment author: EngineerofScience 04 August 2015 02:16:04PM *  -1 points [-]

I would say that according to rationality and game theory cooperating is the best choice. I will show my logic as if both people were thing the same thing.

If I defect, than they will too, and that will give a result of 2,2

If I cooperate, than they will too, and that will give a result of 3,3

I could defect and hope they use the logic above and get a gain of 5,0 but if they use this logic too, then we end up back at the nash equilibrium of getting a result of 2,2.

If I cooperate then I am giving the opponent an oppurtunity to defect but if both people are using this logic than I should cooperate and will end up at the pareto boundry and end up with a result of 3,3 but it is unrealistic to try to achieve a better score so I should just cooperate

And so, both people cooperate.

Comment author: gjm 04 August 2015 02:11:17PM 0 points [-]

Both in this sense and in this as well.

OK, so the first one shows that if you run a business you can get into trouble for discriminating against certain traditionally-discriminated-against groups. And the second shows that in some parts of the business world, giving money to an anti-same-sex-marriage campaign can disqualify you from the role of CEO. I don't think these examples are good support for worrying about 'the transformation of "politeness and decency" into enforced mandatory attitudes', and I'll (too verbosely, sorry) explain why.

The first of these (which, unlike the other, involves actual legal mandatoriness) seems to me distinctly less dramatic than t.t.o.p.a.d.i.e.m.a., but I can see how you could describe it that way. But I can't help suspecting that what you disapprove of here may not be only enforced politeness-and-decency. Imagine a similar case where, instead of refusing to serve a same-sex couple, the business refused to serve a mixed-race couple. This would be illegal in the same way and would meet with the same sanction; and, I suggest, this would be equally a matter of legally enforced politeness-and-decency.

How would you feel about that case? Here's how I would feel about it, which not coincidentally is roughly how I feel about the same-sex case too. Freedom is important and, were it not for the consequences for others, I would like businesses to be free to operate however they want. However, there are consequences for others, which is why (to take a much less controversial example) in many jurisdictions a shop cannot legally sell what it claims are bread rolls suitable for human consumption that are actually full of metal shavings and strychnine. Some groups of people -- e.g., black people, women, gay people -- have traditionally been the object of suspicion and hatred and discrimination, and for each of these groups there are plenty of people who would love to discriminate against them. If such discrimination were legal, then people belonging to these groups might find themselves at a substantial systematic disadvantage; it's not like 5% of businesses would say "no blacks" and another 5% "no whites", 5% "no gay people" and 5% "no straight people"; the discriminations correlate. I think we are all better off if these groups are not systematically disadvantaged, and I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of freedom-to-discriminate for that. This argument works only in so far as there's enough prejudice (at least in some places; it tends to be localized) that the groups in question really do suffer substantial systematic harm. I think there still is, against all the traditionally-disfavoured groups, but maybe in 30 years that will change and we can make some of them not be protected classes any more.

If you feel that way about (say) black people (or, relatedly, mixed-race couples) but not about (say) gay people (or, relatedly, same-sex couples) then I think our disagreement is not about politeness and decency being socially mandatory, it's about whether there's more discrimination against one group than another or whether one group's interests matter more than another's.

The second example (Brendan Eich) concerns social rather than legal mandatoriness, and I think this is something that varies considerably between different bits of society. E.g., the owners of Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby have espoused attitudes exactly opposite to the ones you say are becoming mandatory and they are at no risk of being ousted for them. So I'm not sure that "enforced mandatory attitudes" is a good description; what's happening is that Mozilla's employees and most vocal advocates are a rather atypical segment of the population, and there are things they disapprove of more strongly than the population at large. And that companies are generally really keen for their CEOs not to be disapproved of by the people they need to be on their side. I bet there are businesses (ones serving very socially-conservative markets) in which an openly gay person would be at a big disadvantage if they wanted to be CEO.

(I'd guess that the Eich case is highly visible because it's atypical, in that they actually got as far as appointing him. I would hazard a guess that openly gay people, and major donors to anti-same-sex-marriage campaigns, are both underrepresented among CEOs, but that there's little outrage about this because those people are just quietly less likely to be appointed. There are relatively few black or female CEOs, too, and while some people are upset about this it isn't a cause celebre in the way the Eich case is.)

Comment author: RichardKennaway 04 August 2015 02:01:20PM *  0 points [-]

I'm very curious why you think 5% is a realistic estimate of the probability of cryonics working

I don't have a particular opinion on that. It's just the sort of figure I've seen from people in favour of cryo — that is the chance they are betting on, not a lottery jackpot. I am not signed up and am not planning to, despite having a sufficient pile of money. At the same time, I don't think the whole cryo movement is misguided either. It's an idea that should be pursued by those with the motivation to do so, both by freezing bodies now and researching preservation and revival methods.

I also don't have a particular opinion about how soon a singularity may happen (or a global extinction). For those who think that one of those is very likely to happen before they need cryo, cryo is also not a good bet. At least, they might want to keep their cryo funding in a more liquid form than an insurance policy.

So some of that probability will have to be spent on you not dying in a way that makes cryonics impossible, or on the cryonics company not going bust, or on there being no unexpected legal obstacles, etc). If you want to sell me on cryonics, this is what you will have to sell me on.

Yes, those are real concerns that anyone contemplating signing up, or urging other people to, has to assess.

Comment author: ZankerH 04 August 2015 01:31:33PM 0 points [-]

octopi

Octopuses / octopodes. It's greek, not latin.

Comment author: btrettel 04 August 2015 01:24:25PM *  1 point [-]

If you really need to branch then svn is the wrong tool to use, because branching makes a lot more sense for distributed systems. For the repositories I use svn for, I never once have had to branch in any complicated way. If I needed to branch in a significant way, I'd use git or hg. The most I've done is "branching" a file by duplicating it, and then later merging in the changes with a graphical diff tool. At this level, git is no easier or harder than svn, though you might consider this approach to be sloppier than git's approach.

Talking to some git people gives me the impression that they branch way more often than is necessary, though. Maybe if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Comment author: ike 04 August 2015 01:21:50PM 0 points [-]

And you won't have any other use for that money when you're dead.

That's assuming you'd otherwise die with enough money to pay for it, and neglecting fees that need to be paid while alive. "Life insurance" doesn't solve this, you still need to pay for it.

Comment author: ike 04 August 2015 01:16:23PM 1 point [-]

If we had verifiably working cryo today, it might be easier to change people's minds.

I think your "might" is a severe understatement. If people could actually see other previously dead people walk, this would have an immediate and large effect.

Comment author: SolveIt 04 August 2015 01:05:43PM 1 point [-]

I think the point of the quote is that in the first case you have five methods you can use to attack different problems. In the second case you only have one method, and you have to hope every problem is a nail.

Comment author: Diadem 04 August 2015 01:01:20PM 0 points [-]

No that one in a billion was meant to be illustrative, not a real estimate of probability. But honestly even if you lower that 5% probability by only 1 or 2 orders of magnitude the proposition already becomes very dubious.

Don't forget that you can also extend your life by spending that money some other way. I think the singularity will probably happen somewhere between 2040 and 2060. So when I'm between 58 and 78 years old. This means I have a good chance to make it even without cryonics. Instead of taking that extra life insurance to pay for cryonics, I could for example also decide to work a few hours a week less, and spend that time on exercise. Not only would that be more enjoyable, it would also probably do more for my chances to reach the singularity.

If you're significantly older now, that particular math may change. But cryonics is still a long shot, and spending so much money still means a significant hit in quality of life.

I'm very curious why you think 5% is a realistic estimate of the probability of cryonics working (actually on the probability of cryonics working for you personally. So some of that probability will have to be spent on you not dying in a way that makes cryonics impossible, or on the cryonics company not going bust, or on there being no unexpected legal obstacles, etc). If you want to sell me on cryonics, this is what you will have to sell me on.

Comment author: ShardPhoenix 04 August 2015 12:59:03PM *  1 point [-]

The big thing (for some people) that you are missing with git is that it makes working with branches really easy. In my first job we used SVN and maintaining separate branches was a pain in the ass, to the point where we only did it for a release branch, while with git it's pretty trivial to the point where people use them all the time even when working locally only.

I do agree that git's documentation and UX for basic operations is not as nice as SVN.

edit: Also agree about the signalling part to some extent. I do feel like there's a tendency among some programmers to gravitate toward the most complex plausible technology in order to show how smart they are.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 04 August 2015 12:45:44PM 1 point [-]

I was under the impression that "brain space" was unlimited for all practical intents and purposes, and that having more stuff in your brain might actually even make extra learning easier - e.g. I've often heard it said that a person loses fluid intelligence when they age, but this is compensated by them having more knowledge that they can connect new things with. Do you know of studies to the contrary?

Comment author: Elo 04 August 2015 12:38:53PM 0 points [-]

Really useful!

Comment author: Elo 04 August 2015 12:38:31PM 0 points [-]

I think no; but also ask in the next OT because this one is no longer the most recent. Maybe make a poll?

Comment author: G0W51 04 August 2015 12:20:26PM 0 points [-]

I think something else is going on. The responses to this question about the feasibility of strong AI mostly stated that it was possible, though selection bias is probably largely at play, as knowledgable people would be more likely to answer than the ignorant would be.

Comment author: Raelifin 04 August 2015 12:20:20PM 1 point [-]

These are great suggestions! (As are others, suggested in other comments.) Thank you!

When I gave my presentation last night I made sure that people knew that it was called the ITT by others and that was what to search for (I also pointed them to UnEY). I'm still on the fence about pushing the name (ITT is really hard to say) but I'll keep your reservations in mind.

I'll keep you informed of the details moving forward. :-)

Comment author: Elo 04 August 2015 12:15:48PM *  1 point [-]

An excellent question! I have now written a meta document of "How do I learn X" which I have sent off to a friend to be checked before I post it on Lesswrong. I will post a link (probably in the next 24 hours) to a discussion thread. I think the meta-strategy is going to be more helpful and for more people. I can write a specific list after.

As a teaser:

  1. Make a list of your knowledge in the area
  2. Confirm what you think you know (via brief research), replace your existing knowledge with correct knowledge.
  3. Make a list of the topics of knowledge in the area.
  4. spend time finding the best resource (as a trade off of searching-time, $cost, time-to-cover-the-resource)
  5. delve in, absorb the knowledge
  6. devise ways to test yourself, and/or experiment that you have gained the knowledge. (experimental methods include controlled environments, repeated tests, evaluation)
  7. teach others in order to cement your knowledge.

This list is a teaser; there are more points, but you can probably cover 1-3 by the time I get to publish the list.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 04 August 2015 12:01:15PM 0 points [-]

And a 5% chance of cryonics working seems hopelessly optimistic to me. So let's make that a 0.0000001% chance of working. Suddenly it seems like a pretty lousy deal. Do you think any rational person would still say yes?

No, they wouldn't. If that really is your estimated probability (where did you get those six zeros from? why not three, or twenty?), then you should not sign up for cryo. Those involved think there's a much higher chance than that. In fact, 5% is the usual order of magnitude.

And you won't have any other use for that money when you're dead. Whether it would be better to give it away and certainly die is a whole other issue. (EA meets cryonics — there's a subject for an interesting debate.)

So yes, those signing up are betting on a long shot, but not an impossibly long one.

Comment author: SolveIt 04 August 2015 11:52:28AM 0 points [-]

Then why accept the simplest solution instead of say, the most beautiful solution, or the most intuitive solution?

Comment author: RichardKennaway 04 August 2015 11:46:05AM 0 points [-]

Such are the hazards of early adoption.

Comment author: Username 04 August 2015 11:37:20AM 1 point [-]

In many political systems, a major intention of campaigning is to attract news coverage, not to influence voters directly.

View more: Next