You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Emile comments on What topics would you like to see more of on LessWrong? - Less Wrong Discussion

25 Post author: Emile 13 December 2010 04:20PM

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

Comments (137)

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

Comment author: Emile 13 December 2010 08:23:13PM 4 points [-]

I don't know if it can be reliably measured - my impression is that it's pretty damn hard, and that once you heard about most tests (the kind that are used to show irrationality in the first place, i.e. those already discussed on less wrong), you won't fall for them but that doesn't say much about how less likely you are for thinking right in "real life" situations where your brain isn't primed by "this is a test of rationality".

Some sub-components can be reliably measured - such as calibration. Any others?

Comment author: Desrtopa 14 December 2010 03:36:54AM 2 points [-]

My thought on hearing the proposal was that it would be impractically difficult, but on further consideration I suspect it would be much easier than creating a reliable test for intelligence. With proper effort, we should at least be able to beat the standard set by IQ tests

Comment author: Craig_Heldreth 13 December 2010 09:27:23PM 2 points [-]
Comment author: Emile 13 December 2010 10:21:01PM 2 points [-]

I got through unscathed, but I suspect most atheists would. I don't think that test is very good at discerning rationality beyond the "knows about logic" and "doesn't believe in God".

Comment author: Spurlock 14 December 2010 04:32:35AM 2 points [-]

FWIW, I started it with "God Exists" as true and also got through it unscathed. But you're right, it doesn't seem to try very hard presenting atheists with pitfalls and traps. I was at least expecting some kind of foul trickery about the Big Bang.

Comment author: Davorak 13 December 2010 11:06:36PM *  0 points [-]

I would expect it to be extremely hard. I do not limit the scope of these tests to simple paper question and answer. I would be ok if an MRI was needed, for the teste not to know the test was about rationality, if it required a group of well trained actors to fool the teste, or a virtual simulation(within todays technology). Of course tests that can be used/verified immediately by users are preferable.

In the end the techniques required may be prohibitive, but at least it would make known what techniques/technologies to watch/promote for the future.