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.

Free research help, editing and article downloads for LessWrong

55 Post author: jsalvatier 06 September 2011 09:13PM

Update: Please use the most recent thread.

The LW Public Goods Team wants to encourage useful research projects (as well other kinds of projects) for the LW community. If you're interested in doing this kind of work, you might run into a problem that is best solved by good outside assistance. Without assistance you might get discouraged and stop working on the project or never even start it. We want to help you avoid that. Do you

  • Not know how to interpret a finding and want help figuring it out?
  • Need access to a particular paper and need someone with a library subscription to download it for you?
  • Need someone to edit your writing?
  • Not even know what you're having trouble with, but you know is that you're stuck and need someone to troubleshoot you?

Then, we want to help!

How do you request such help? For now, I think the best way is to post to the discussion section about your problem. That way other interested people can also provide help and be interested in your research. If you feel uncomfortable doing this, you may post to the public goods team mailing list (lw-public-goods-team@googlegroups.com) or if it's not too long after this was posted, post in the comments.

I personally commit to doing at least 3 hours a week of tasks like these for people doing LessWrong related projects (assuming demand for it; I'll be keeping a log) for at least the next month. Morendil has committed to doing at least an hour of this and atucker has promised to some as well.

Our goal is to find out whether this kind of help is effective and encourages people. If this kind of assistance turns out to be valuable, we'll continue to offer it.

If you would like to volunteer some time (a little or a lot), say so in the comments!

Comments (439)

Comment author: wallowinmaya 19 December 2012 05:24:13PM 0 points [-]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14622741

Can anyone send me the full text? Thanks in advance

Comment author: jsalvatier 19 December 2012 08:51:38PM 2 points [-]
Comment author: wallowinmaya 20 December 2012 06:33:59PM 0 points [-]

thanks!

Comment author: jsalvatier 07 October 2012 11:49:37PM 1 point [-]

I've made a new thread with the intent that new requests should go there. I'll probably still fill requests there, but please monitor requests at the new thread if you're helping out.

Comment author: gwern 04 October 2012 09:06:58PM *  0 points [-]

Richardson, James T. 1991. "Cult/Brainwashing Cases and Freedom of Religion," J. Church & State, 33:1, pp. 55-74.

Comment author: VincentYu 05 October 2012 08:56:06AM 1 point [-]
Comment author: gwern 05 October 2012 11:42:47PM 0 points [-]

Thanks.

Comment author: gwern 03 October 2012 08:08:47PM 0 points [-]

Legarde, D., Batejat, D., Van Beers, P., Sarafian, D., Pradella,S. (1995). Interest of Modafinil, a New Psychostimulant, During a Sixty-Hour Sleep Deprivation Experiment. Fundamental and Clinical Pharmacology, 9(3), 271-279

Comment author: jsalvatier 05 October 2012 09:34:55PM *  0 points [-]

Here. Have any of these modafinil papers proven particularly useful? Do you update your modafinil survey?

Comment author: gwern 05 October 2012 11:32:27PM 1 point [-]

Thanks.

I update all the time (183 edits since I created it in 20 February 2009), although offhand I couldn't say how many papers I request I then use more precisely than >80%.

Comment author: jsalvatier 03 October 2012 09:09:24PM 0 points [-]

Requested.

Comment author: Epiphany 26 September 2012 04:54:41AM *  0 points [-]

It's not clear to me whether the offer is to help with any project, for LessWrong articles, or research projects for SI. The title says "for LessWrong" but that may just mean "for any member of LessWrong".

Comment author: jsalvatier 26 September 2012 07:51:13AM 1 point [-]

My heuristic is "if it is of interest to LW people then it counts". Does that help? What's your project?

Comment author: Epiphany 27 September 2012 03:52:31AM *  0 points [-]

I want to offer assistance, actually, but I'll probably be back here to ask for some later. ;) Here is what I offer:

I know tons about psychology. If there's something you don't know the word for, or don't think has been covered, or are looking for a reference for, I'm an excellent person to ask about that. In addition to knowing a lot about psychology in general (like abnormal psychology), I have also specialized in an arcane area of psychology: gifted adults. I say this is arcane because if you wanted to get a psychology degree that covers gifted adults, the closest degree to that would be developmental psychology, however developmental psychology is focused on children with learning disorders, contains some information about gifted children, and leaves gifted adults out for the most part. Since there were other reasons that getting a degree was not very useful in my case (in addition to them not teaching enough about the population I'm most interested in, even according to an award winning school teacher, school isn't a great way to learn, and I have several learning differences that give me big advantages when learning on my own and big disadvantages when learning in a school environment), I chose to learn independently rather than getting a psychology degree. I don't diagnose or treat anyone, obviously, or claim to be a psychologist, but I can cite and summarize what I've read and suggest perspectives based on my experiences and information. These may be extremely useful.

This knowledge is relevant to LessWrong members for two reasons: 1.) According to the last survey, LessWrong's average IQ is 140. This information may be useful for you guys in understanding yourselves. (I fully intend to do some writing for this group - that's a key reason I joined). 2.) People interested in artificial intelligence may want to know random things about human intelligence.

I normally rely on the internet or on libraries for information, but I also own some books on these topics which may be useful if look-ups are needed.

I don't think a time commitment is appropriate, as the amount of information I will be asked for is likely to be totally random, resulting in many weeks where nothing is asked for. This will encourage me not to factor in the commitment when I consider how to use my time each week, and that's not a good way to deal with commitments. So, I'll do this on a random basis. As long as the purpose of the research is ethical, I'll be more than happy to look for a way to fit you in with my priorities.

To get my attention, reply to me directly or PM and make it clear that it's about this offer.

Comment author: jsalvatier 27 September 2012 05:51:44PM 0 points [-]

I'm certainly happy to have your help. However, this service has come to be used primarily as a library for academic papers. I don't think many people will request your services unless you do a little bit of advertising that you're here. Perhaps make a discussion thread about it.

I'm more than happy to help you out when you need help.

Comment author: Cyan 26 September 2012 04:49:35AM 0 points [-]
Comment author: jsalvatier 26 September 2012 07:55:25AM 2 points [-]
Comment author: Cyan 26 September 2012 08:01:53PM 0 points [-]

So awesome.

Thanks, John.

Comment author: jsalvatier 26 September 2012 11:37:43PM 1 point [-]

Glad to help :)

Comment author: lukeprog 26 September 2012 04:01:08AM 0 points [-]
Comment author: jsalvatier 26 September 2012 07:56:28AM 3 points [-]
Comment author: lukeprog 26 September 2012 12:13:58PM 0 points [-]

Thanks!

Comment author: lukeprog 25 September 2012 03:02:34PM 1 point [-]
Comment author: VincentYu 25 September 2012 07:26:55PM 2 points [-]
Comment author: lukeprog 25 September 2012 09:16:02PM 0 points [-]

Thanks!

Comment author: gwern 24 September 2012 04:38:37PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: jsalvatier 24 September 2012 09:24:03PM 0 points [-]

Requested.

Comment author: VincentYu 24 September 2012 08:53:38PM 1 point [-]
Comment author: gwern 24 September 2012 09:35:09PM 0 points [-]

Downloaded, thanks.

Comment author: VincentYu 20 September 2012 06:37:00PM *  1 point [-]

Two resources (I've rot13ed the names and URLs):

  • Yvoenel Trarfvf (yvotra.bet) – This enormous book repository has been mentioned a few times before on LW. yvotra.bet and tra.yvo.ehf.rp (you need a non-US VPN/proxy to access these) are the official mirrors. A list of mirrors operated by others can be found through Download -> Mirrors (and in the grandchild comment below).

  • Fpv-Uho (fpv-uho.bet) – This offers proxy access through ~20 different university libraries. It worked well on a few papers that I wasn't able to access otherwise. This should be especially useful if you don't normally have VPN access to a library. (If the current proxy doesn't have access to your paper, just click the refresh icon on the right to switch to another proxy.) Again, looks like you'll need a non-US IP.

Also, I acquired a copy of FineReader and would be happy to OCR any scanned paper or book that you have (I've tried some open-source and free online alternatives and found them lacking). Just leave a comment here as usual.

I will be applying OCR by default to future requests that I receive as scanned documents. This includes some image manipulation (deskewing, contrast enhancing, etc.) and lossy compression (in general, the final product is more readable than the original, despite the compression). Let me know if you don't want these applied and prefer the original un-OCRed scan.

Comment author: jsalvatier 21 September 2012 07:27:58AM 1 point [-]

I'm a little confused. The first two links redirect to books.google.com for me. Is that cause I'm in the US? What's the best way to read more about Library Genesis?

Sci-hub.org redirects to myescience.org, is that correct?

Comment author: VincentYu 24 September 2012 09:03:26PM 3 points [-]

o_O Huh. No, I did not anticipate these redirects for the first and third links...

I just found the reason on their forum (can you access this?):

the USA were blocked from access, because it is the only source of copyright abuses. They want it shut, they'll see it shut.

Looks like they want to remain obscure, at least in the US:

search google with double quotes "tra.yvo.ehf.rp" [rot13ed] and find all unique messages that discuss LG in the most open places (harvested by google crawlers often). Try to contact authors of the messages and kindly ask them to remove any mentioning of LG from the postings.

Here is the current list of mirrors (rot13ed); I'm pretty sure the 4th and 5th work in the US:

  • yvotra.bet
  • tra.yvo.ehf.rp
  • obbxsv.bet
  • jjj.yvotra.vasb
  • yvotra.vasb (guvf vf nccneragyl ba n qvssrerag freire guna jjj.yvotra.vasb)
  • jjj.yvotra.arg (guvf frrzf gb unir gur fnzr VC nf jjj.yvotra.vasb)
  • iahxv.bet
  • obbxbf.bet
  • h76i7un6w4wzgm3x2yfrnfb5dl36ykf77xyubizcghsjpbqbingd.o32.v2c/ (guebhtu V2C)

Their IP filter list for yvotra.bet must not be very good because I can access it through my Rochester VPN (I'm in the UK right now).

Yeah, it seems like Fpv-Uho redirects to myescience.org in the US, but that's not the correct site. The site that I see looks like this: imgur.com/XpVa3. I suppose people in the US will need a VPN or proxy to access it. Maybe try the free proxies on proxy.org? (I've been using this paid VPN service for ~1 year without issues, but there are plenty of other commercial alternatives.)

Comment author: jsalvatier 24 September 2012 09:17:41PM 0 points [-]

Very interesting. Have you found this site pretty useful above and beyond what your university gives you?

Comment author: VincentYu 24 September 2012 09:27:33PM 2 points [-]

Fpv-Uho is occasionally useful for me. E.g., I was actually unable to access this paper that Gwern requested below through any of my three university VPNs (Rochester, Oxford, Chinese University of Hong Kong), but I managed to grab it off one of the library proxies through Fpv-Uho.

(Yvoenel Trarfvf is obviously useful for anyone who wants to download books.)

Comment author: gwern 19 September 2012 11:43:25PM *  0 points [-]
Comment author: VincentYu 24 September 2012 09:52:47PM 0 points [-]

Here. Got it from Fpv-Uho. :D

Comment author: gwern 24 September 2012 10:27:25PM 0 points [-]

Thanks.

Comment author: jsalvatier 24 September 2012 09:26:17PM *  1 point [-]

My request was canceled by ILL staff because it has not been released and/or they couldn't get a hold of it elsewhere. I'll try again in 2 months.

Comment author: gwern 24 September 2012 09:34:30PM 0 points [-]

OK, thanks.

Comment author: jsalvatier 20 September 2012 05:30:53AM 2 points [-]

Requested.

Comment author: lukeprog 19 September 2012 05:29:06AM 0 points [-]
Comment author: VincentYu 20 September 2012 06:28:24PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: jsalvatier 19 September 2012 07:47:01AM 1 point [-]

Requested.

Comment author: gwern 18 September 2012 08:31:48PM 0 points [-]

per http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/ej3/scientists_make_monkeys_smarter_using_brain/7g2x

Comment author: VincentYu 18 September 2012 10:34:21PM 0 points [-]

I've added them to the original thread.

Comment author: gwern 16 September 2012 12:16:23AM 0 points [-]

Peter Rossi, "The iron law of evaluation and other metallic rules". Research in Social Problems and Public Policy. 1987;4:3–20.

Comment author: VincentYu 17 September 2012 05:00:37PM 1 point [-]
Comment author: gwern 17 September 2012 05:52:27PM 0 points [-]

Thanks.

Comment author: VincentYu 16 September 2012 09:39:23AM 1 point [-]

Requested.

Comment author: [deleted] 13 September 2012 06:31:05PM *  0 points [-]

Need access to a particular paper and need someone with a library subscription to download it for you?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6018/772.short

Comment author: jsalvatier 13 September 2012 07:33:28PM 4 points [-]
Comment author: lukeprog 12 September 2012 10:08:10PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: jsalvatier 13 September 2012 04:05:01AM 4 points [-]
Comment author: lukeprog 12 September 2012 12:30:20AM 1 point [-]
Comment author: VincentYu 12 September 2012 08:08:14PM 4 points [-]
Comment author: lukeprog 12 September 2012 09:24:14PM 0 points [-]

Thanks mucho!

Comment author: lukeprog 11 September 2012 11:14:33AM 0 points [-]
Comment author: VincentYu 11 September 2012 11:48:06AM 5 points [-]
Comment author: lukeprog 11 September 2012 01:00:34PM 0 points [-]

Thanks!

Comment author: lukeprog 11 September 2012 11:11:08AM 0 points [-]
Comment author: VincentYu 11 September 2012 11:47:57AM 5 points [-]
Comment author: lukeprog 04 September 2012 05:02:29AM 0 points [-]
Comment author: jsalvatier 04 September 2012 07:03:26AM 3 points [-]
Comment author: lukeprog 04 September 2012 07:34:44AM 0 points [-]

Thanks!

Comment author: gwern 01 September 2012 08:01:22PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: VincentYu 02 September 2012 01:15:15AM 1 point [-]
Comment author: gwern 02 September 2012 01:20:30AM 0 points [-]

Thanks.

Comment author: gwern 01 September 2012 06:19:48PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: VincentYu 04 September 2012 07:02:50PM 1 point [-]
Comment author: gwern 04 September 2012 07:24:19PM 0 points [-]

Thanks.

Comment author: VincentYu 02 September 2012 02:56:54AM 2 points [-]

Requested.

Comment author: gwern 01 September 2012 05:49:09PM 0 points [-]

"Optimum rehearsal patterns and name learning" pg 625-632; TK Landauer, RA Bjork. In: Practical aspects of memory ed. Gruneberg, 1978 ISBN 0471912344

Comment author: laakeus 25 September 2012 07:48:48PM 0 points [-]

I'm interested to hear what are your thoughts on Bjork's lab's findings. As I understand, they do recognize spacing effect, but try to make theories beoynd that.

Comment author: VincentYu 02 September 2012 02:27:42AM 3 points [-]
Comment author: gwern 02 September 2012 02:30:06AM 1 point [-]

Wait, I recognize that URL... I assumed it was one of Bjork's later papers or works, like the one I got the original citation from. >.<

Comment author: VincentYu 02 September 2012 03:00:00AM 0 points [-]

I was actually under the same impression from the Google result page, and was pleasantly surprised to find that it was in fact the paper you sought.

Comment author: lukeprog 30 August 2012 02:33:46AM 0 points [-]
Comment author: VincentYu 30 August 2012 01:39:45PM *  3 points [-]

All five: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Comment author: lukeprog 30 August 2012 06:57:05PM 0 points [-]

Awesome, thanks!

Comment author: lukeprog 30 August 2012 02:33:38AM 0 points [-]
Comment author: lukeprog 30 August 2012 02:31:46AM 0 points [-]
Comment author: lukeprog 30 August 2012 02:31:26AM 0 points [-]
Comment author: lukeprog 30 August 2012 02:30:09AM 0 points [-]
Comment author: ChrisHallquist 28 August 2012 05:57:11AM -1 points [-]

Here's another paper I've identified as potentially useful, for same project as was mentioned in previous comments:

Shah, Huma; Warwick, Kevin (June 2010), "Hidden Interlocutor Misidentification in Practical Turing Tests", Minds and Machines 20 (3): 441-454

Comment author: VincentYu 28 August 2012 06:23:44AM 1 point [-]
Comment author: ChrisHallquist 28 August 2012 06:30:53AM -1 points [-]

Thanks!

Looking over this thread, I'm impressed by how many of these requests you've managed to answer.

Comment author: VincentYu 28 August 2012 05:21:06AM 0 points [-]

Does anyone know any other place where we can ask for free ILL requests? I think jsalvatier and I can request only a single chapter out of each book without running into copyright issues, but there are some (out-of-print and as-yet-unpirated) books from which I'd like to get more than two chapters in electronic form. (AFAIK, Reddit's r/scholar doesn't do ILL requests.)

Comment author: jsalvatier 28 August 2012 07:02:33AM 1 point [-]

I have a one or two friends who would probably do ILL requests for me.

Comment author: VincentYu 20 August 2012 07:44:17PM 0 points [-]

I seek the following book chapters. Could someone submit ILL requests for me?

  1. Ruddick, William. 1980. “Concluding note.” In Philosophers in Medical Centers, edited by William Ruddick, 81–2. New York: Society for Philosophy and Public Affairs. OCLC:7424036

  2. Hooper, Edward. 1999. “The quieting of Louis Pascal.” In The River: A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS, 365–74. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co. OCLC:39905078

  3. Pascal, Louis. 1986. “Judgement day.” In Applied Ethics, edited by Peter Singer, 105–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press. OCLC:13820779

Comment author: jsalvatier 20 August 2012 11:45:47PM 1 point [-]

Requested.

Comment author: VincentYu 08 October 2012 06:12:23AM 1 point [-]

Hey, I got full-book scans of these books, so I won't need these chapters anymore.

Comment author: Pablo_Stafforini 09 October 2012 03:17:48PM 0 points [-]

Hey Vincent. Would you mind sending me copies of the three papers? (I assume the first two relate to the third, which I read, and liked, a long time ago. If they are unrelated, I'm not that interested.) My name is Pablo Stafforini, and my email address is FirstName@LastName.com, with the obvious substitutions. Thanks!

Comment author: beriukay 15 October 2012 02:51:27PM 1 point [-]

I was in the works of getting the Quieting of Louis Pascal chapter when this request got canceled. Here's that one, if you still want it.

Comment author: Pablo_Stafforini 15 October 2012 03:32:31PM *  1 point [-]

Vincent kindly sent me all three items already, but thanks anyway.

Comment author: gwern 16 October 2012 12:55:50AM *  0 points [-]

I've finished reading that chapter, and it's a pretty strange story (the Wikipedia article indicates his AIDS hypothesis is even more refuted these days). Why were you interested in it?

Comment author: Pablo_Stafforini 16 October 2012 05:03:34AM 0 points [-]

I was interested in that article, which I have yet to read, only because it was authored by Louis Pascal. I'm interested in Pascal because he authored this other article (see here for discussion).

Comment author: VincentYu 15 September 2012 12:05:49PM 0 points [-]

Have you heard back from the library?

Comment author: jsalvatier 18 September 2012 09:11:51PM 1 point [-]

Sorry for the long delay here. The issue is that I didn't get e copies of these as I normally do, but instead they placed holds on the books, and I still have to go see if they're available yet. I'm also in SF till the 22nd.

Comment author: jsalvatier 18 September 2012 09:13:11PM 1 point [-]

I'll try to work this out when I get back.

Comment author: VincentYu 18 September 2012 09:45:18PM 0 points [-]

No problem, there's no rush. Thanks for doing this. (I've found the third item elsewhere, so please disregard that.)

Comment author: jsalvatier 19 September 2012 07:48:37AM 0 points [-]

By the way, would you like to have a skype chat sometime next week? I think it would be interesting to talk, and I'm curious who you are.

Comment author: VincentYu 20 September 2012 05:42:36PM 0 points [-]

Sure. IIRC, my Skype username is (rot13ed) lhivapragr. I actually prefer IM through Gchat, where I can be reached at (rot13ed) nolpwlirl@tznvy.pbz.

Comment author: ChrisHallquist 18 August 2012 06:23:20AM 1 point [-]

Hi everyone,

I'm currently working for the Singularity Institute on a project tracking AI progress over the decades. One section I'm working on is on logistics AI. I'm trying to find information on a program called NONLIN apparently used by the Navy. The paper Russell & Norvig cite as a source on NONLIN is not available free online, far as I can tell:

Tate, A. and Whiter, A. M. (1984). Planning with multiple resource constraints and an application to a naval planning problem_ in Proc. First Conference on AI Application, pp. 410-4 Lb.

If anyone can get me this paper, PM me, and I'll send you my e-mail address. If you happen across other sources with information on NONLIN, that would be appreciated too!

Comment author: jsalvatier 19 September 2012 08:09:23AM 0 points [-]
Comment author: jsalvatier 18 August 2012 09:37:33PM 3 points [-]

I've submitted an Inter Library Loan request. Should hopefully have it in a couple of days.

Comment author: VincentYu 18 August 2012 02:35:03PM *  2 points [-]

I don't have the paper you are trying to find, but here are three pharmaceutical papers on using NONLIN (found via Google Scholar): [1] [2] [3]

ETA: Actually, I think that might be a different NONLIN... It wouldn't surprising for two independently developed nonlinear fitters to be both named NONLIN.

Comment author: ChrisHallquist 20 August 2012 09:08:52AM 0 points [-]

Thanks. Unfortunately, I think that is a different NONLIN - the one I'm looking for handles logistics.

Comment author: ChrisHallquist 18 August 2012 07:10:21AM 0 points [-]

Also useful for a different part of the same project would be

Early, J. 1970. "An efficient context-free parsing algorithm" Communications of the ACM. Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 94-102.

Comment author: VincentYu 18 August 2012 02:15:43PM 1 point [-]
Comment author: lukeprog 18 August 2012 04:11:59AM 0 points [-]
Comment author: VincentYu 18 August 2012 01:59:25PM 2 points [-]
Comment author: lukeprog 18 August 2012 05:04:16PM 0 points [-]

Thanks!

Comment author: lukeprog 14 August 2012 03:03:12AM 0 points [-]

www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13869795.2012.706822

Comment author: VincentYu 14 August 2012 04:06:03AM 0 points [-]
Comment author: lukeprog 14 August 2012 06:37:38PM 0 points [-]

Thanks!

Comment author: gwern 13 August 2012 04:33:32PM 3 points [-]

I'm starting to think it may be time to start a new article; besides being more manageable, one could go through the old one, identify any remaining outstanding requests, and copy them over. As it is, probably no one is going through the old ones because it's too hard to work out which ones haven't been filled...

Also a good excuse to tote up some statistics like '300 papers provided' etc!

Comment author: jsalvatier 14 August 2012 07:46:32AM 0 points [-]

I haven't noticed this being unmanageable recently, but I can see it becoming so. I wonder if there is a better solution than another thread though. Bug tracking software (perhaps github) might work well because people can open a request and then once it's found, the thread is hidden.

Comment author: gwern 14 August 2012 04:52:20PM 2 points [-]

People don't want to use a separate site; if they did, no one would be using this page because they'd be using the subreddit devoted to this, or the equivalent Wikipedia reference request desk, etc.

Comment author: jsalvatier 14 August 2012 05:49:49PM 1 point [-]

This service has mostly turned out to be used by a couple of people. Do you prefer to use LW proper? I was under the impression that this service was mostly valuable because we have access to ILL requests and because we're more interested in helping than elsewhere.

Comment author: gwern 14 August 2012 07:07:56PM 2 points [-]

I do, yeah. And it is easier to keep up here.

Comment author: jsalvatier 15 August 2012 06:38:32AM 0 points [-]

Hmm, okay. Have you noticed this thread being unwieldy in some way? What is your main concern?

Comment author: gwern 15 August 2012 05:52:04PM 3 points [-]

As comments increase, more of the page gets buried in click-to-continue wrappers, so any kind of navigation gets harder. It gets harder for me to refind old requests I might need. It gets harder for anyone to look through for unfilled requests. And so on.

I also don't like pages with too many comments on pure aesthetic grounds. As good a time as any to pull the plug and inaugurate a second article. (Would be good for your karma too, which you deserve!)

Comment author: siodine 15 August 2012 05:58:23PM 0 points [-]

Speaking of difficult to navigate, can you navigate me towards your series of comments about studies regarding IQ in societies?

Comment author: gwern 15 August 2012 06:14:09PM *  1 point [-]
Comment author: siodine 15 August 2012 06:19:08PM 0 points [-]

Yes, thank you :)

Comment author: lukeprog 12 August 2012 04:01:44AM 0 points [-]

Larrick, Morgan, & Nisbett (1990). Teaching the use of cost-benefit reasoning in everyday life. Psychological Science, 1: 362-370.

Comment author: jsalvatier 12 August 2012 05:59:06AM 2 points [-]
Comment author: lukeprog 12 August 2012 03:26:21AM 0 points [-]

Anand, P., Durand, M., Heckman J., (2011) The Measurement of progress –some achivements and challenges, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, 174, 851-5.

Comment author: jsalvatier 12 August 2012 06:02:41AM 2 points [-]
Comment author: lukeprog 12 August 2012 07:29:59AM 0 points [-]

Thanks for these last two!

Comment author: [deleted] 11 August 2012 11:31:00AM 2 points [-]
  1. A model of decision-making involving two information processors. COMPUTATIONAL ECONOMICS, Volume 2, Number 2 (1989), 119-149.

  2. Design of interactive systems—a formal approach International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Volume 37, Issue 1, July 1992, Pages 23–46.

Comment author: jsalvatier 11 August 2012 06:34:41PM 1 point [-]

Requested #1. Here's #2.

Comment author: [deleted] 12 August 2012 11:40:12AM 0 points [-]

Thank you.

Comment author: VincentYu 11 August 2012 06:29:14PM 5 points [-]
Comment author: [deleted] 12 August 2012 11:39:58AM 0 points [-]

Thanks.

Comment author: gwern 09 August 2012 10:08:22PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: VincentYu 09 August 2012 11:16:56PM 2 points [-]
Comment author: gwern 09 August 2012 11:24:56PM 0 points [-]

Thanks.

Comment author: lukeprog 04 August 2012 10:48:48PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: VincentYu 05 August 2012 12:00:03AM 2 points [-]
Comment author: lukeprog 05 August 2012 01:05:35AM 0 points [-]

Thanks so much ×3!

Comment author: lukeprog 04 August 2012 10:42:26PM 0 points [-]

Grossman et al., A Route to Well-being: Intelligence vs. Wise Reasoning. (Non-HTML version, please.)

Comment author: VincentYu 04 August 2012 11:57:00PM 2 points [-]
Comment author: lukeprog 04 August 2012 10:41:32PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: VincentYu 05 August 2012 12:00:17AM 2 points [-]
Comment author: Jack 31 July 2012 03:02:38PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: jsalvatier 07 August 2012 06:35:00PM 1 point [-]
Comment author: jsalvatier 31 July 2012 09:32:05PM 1 point [-]

first

I'll make the request for the second in a while.

Comment author: Jack 26 July 2012 04:59:24PM *  0 points [-]
Comment author: VincentYu 27 July 2012 12:31:01AM 1 point [-]
Comment author: gwern 25 July 2012 11:35:51PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: VincentYu 27 July 2012 03:38:05PM 2 points [-]
Comment author: gwern 27 July 2012 04:34:39PM 0 points [-]

Thanks.

Comment author: VincentYu 26 July 2012 02:55:02AM 1 point [-]

Requested.

Comment author: Jack 25 July 2012 07:34:26PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: gwern 25 July 2012 08:47:09PM 2 points [-]

Is the book http://libgen.info/view.php?id=824427 not adequate?

Comment author: Jack 25 July 2012 11:39:23PM 0 points [-]

That works.

Comment author: gwern 15 July 2012 12:05:19AM 0 points [-]

Learning How to “Make a Deal”: Human (Homo sapiens) and Monkey (Macaca mulatta) Performance When Repeatedly Faced With the Monty Hall Dilemma

Initially, humans and monkeys showed indifference between the two options of either staying with their initial choice or switching. With experience, members of both species learned to use the switch strategy at above chance levels, but there were individual differences with only approximately half of the participants in each species learning to choose the more optimal response. Thus, humans and monkeys showed similar capacity to adjust their responding as a result of increased experience with this probabilistic task.

(Hilarious-sounding, IMO.)

Comment author: jsalvatier 15 July 2012 04:35:46AM 2 points [-]
Comment author: gwern 15 July 2012 02:15:08PM 0 points [-]

Thanks.

Comment author: Jack 10 July 2012 11:02:51PM 0 points [-]

Confirmation bias in a simulated research environment: An experimental study of scientific inference

Varieties of confirmation bias

And this is a stretch but i someone has these two chapters in a convenient format that would be spectacular:

Perkins, D. N., Allen, R., & Hafner, J. (1983). Difficulties in everyday reasoning. In W. Maxwell (Ed.), Thinking: The frontier expands.

and

Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education.

Comment author: VincentYu 11 July 2012 02:30:21PM 3 points [-]
Comment author: Jack 11 July 2012 03:02:01PM -1 points [-]

Fast! Thanks.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 July 2012 11:01:36AM 2 points [-]
Comment author: VincentYu 11 July 2012 05:05:07AM 2 points [-]

First.

Requested the other three.

Comment author: VincentYu 09 July 2012 06:30:01AM *  3 points [-]

I am interested in obtaining the manuals and test booklets for the following psychometric inventories:

NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R)

Publisher's product page.

The NEO-PI-3 and NEO-FFI-3 would also be useful. (The manuals for these three inventories seem to be identical.)

Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM)

Publisher's product page.

The SPM(+) and CPM would also be useful. (The manuals for these tests are split into several sections/volumes.)


I am not able to buy these inventories from the publishers: the NEO PI-R requires an S-level qualification (certificate, license, or relevant undergraduate degree), while the APM requires a B-level qualification (certification/membership in professional organization or relevant master's degree).

Furthermore, I cannot find any copies of the manuals or test booklets online, so I assume the publishers are serious in suppressing distribution; if you get hold of a copy, PMing me is probably a better idea than posting it publicly.

I would be happy to obtain either the manual or test booklet for any of the aforementioned inventories. (I'd also like to know how I might be able to get these materials, free or otherwise.)

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 25 October 2012 12:59:45AM 1 point [-]

Have you tried interlibrary loan? Lots of university libraries have them.

Comment author: VincentYu 25 October 2012 03:23:04PM 1 point [-]

That's a good idea, thanks.

Comment author: Jack 08 July 2012 09:59:43PM 1 point [-]

For people retrieving articles: what is the easiest request format for you? I've been providing links to the article in databases but I just realized it would be easier for me to retrieve with links to a google scholar search.

Comment author: jsalvatier 09 July 2012 04:25:03AM 0 points [-]

I would prefer the title and author or year in the link. I usually just copy paste the name into my library search engine and try to find that.

Comment author: VincentYu 08 July 2012 10:24:55PM *  0 points [-]

A link to a Google Scholar search with the article at the top would be the easiest for me.

(A general note: searching with the 'allintitle:' operator and the article title often suffices to uniquely identify the article. An example.)

Comment author: Jack 06 July 2012 09:50:15PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: VincentYu 07 July 2012 12:29:35AM 3 points [-]
Comment author: Jack 07 July 2012 12:33:08AM 1 point [-]

Perfect, thanks.

Comment author: gwern 02 July 2012 11:46:47PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: jsalvatier 03 July 2012 02:07:57AM *  2 points [-]

Here, courtesy of my friend.

Comment author: gwern 03 July 2012 02:36:02AM 0 points [-]

?

Comment author: jsalvatier 03 July 2012 04:03:24AM 1 point [-]

sorry, bad formatting, it's updated.

Comment author: gwern 03 July 2012 04:08:12AM 0 points [-]

Ah. Thanks.

Comment author: jsalvatier 03 July 2012 01:24:11AM *  0 points [-]

I don't have access to this and I cannot do an ILL request because I usually use my gf's account and it would currently be disrespectful to use her account (not due to anything related to this).

Comment author: lukeprog 02 July 2012 03:14:55AM 0 points [-]
Comment author: VincentYu 02 July 2012 03:52:22AM 2 points [-]
Comment author: lukeprog 02 July 2012 03:55:48AM 0 points [-]

Thanks so much!

Comment author: gwern 30 June 2012 01:25:49AM 0 points [-]

The Effect Of Training Working Memory And Attention On Pupils’ Fluid Intelligence, C J Zhong 2012, Master's thesis.

Can't seem to find the author anywhere to contact, and there's no obvious way to get it via UWash; supposedly you can order it from that site but I'm not sure I care $25 worth. (The abstract indicates that it used no-contact control groups, so the observation of increased IQ isn't that interesting: it's what the current literature predicts.)

Comment author: VincentYu 30 June 2012 02:35:54AM 2 points [-]

Can be viewed at: http://www.doc88.com/p-397166703921.html

(It's in Chinese.)

Comment author: gwern 30 June 2012 02:49:44AM 1 point [-]

Oh, thanks. I guess now it's time to start guessing what each table is...

How did you find that? Is my Google-fu weak or did you just know that Chinese theses could usually be found on doc88.com, whatever that is?

Comment author: VincentYu 30 June 2012 03:31:52AM *  1 point [-]

Nothing wrong with your Google-fu – I just searched for the article title in Chinese (found the Chinese title through the third English result; my rudimentary understanding of Chinese helped a little since the position of the title is not obvious on that page).

I just had a brief look at the tables and tried to translate them, but it turns out that my Chinese sucks too much... My lack of familiarity with n-back studies doesn't help. I can probably help translate very short phrases, but I'm not really able to understand the context.

Comment author: gwern 30 June 2012 03:44:00PM 0 points [-]

I have partial translations of a number of points: http://groups.google.com/d/msg/brain-training/V_msD2vUjy4/3JN9Vj636K0J

What I could really use now is info on the division of the kids into the various experimental & control groups - I'd prefer not to assume the division was just equal...

Comment author: VincentYu 29 June 2012 07:40:32PM *  10 points [-]

Request for comments from others who frequent this page:

I have been feeling that the academic literature is severely underused outside academia, including here on LW. Every now and then, I see a discussion that I think of interrupting to say, "Why don't you guys go on Google Scholar to learn more about this from people who have already thought about this? [As opposed to trying to come up with the same ideas by yourselves.]" (Access isn't a problem: abstracts often provide the information that one is looking for, and besides, free access to the vast majority of cited articles is available within hours from, e.g., here and Reddit's r/scholar.)

I'm hesitant about making this sort of comment because there is a clear potential for signaling: "I read journal articles that smart people read; I'm so smart. [You don't read these articles; you're not smart.]" From an outside view, I can imagine people making this sort of comment to signal intelligence (related), so I'm worried that my belief that the academic literature is underused is coming from a rationalization of a desire to use this signal.

If the literature is indeed underused, one possible explanation is that online journal access and search is a very recent innovation. If I'm not mistaken, it was very difficult for the general public to access any journal article ten years ago (and searching for specific information would have been a daunting task even for specialists).

Any thoughts?

Comment author: satt 30 June 2012 12:25:45AM 5 points [-]

(Access isn't a problem: abstracts often provide the information that one is looking for, and besides, free access to the vast majority of cited articles is available within hours from, e.g., here and Reddit's r/scholar.)

Beware trivial inconveniences!

I do agree with your main point, though. I've had experiences like gwern's of being able to dredge up information to check guesses (or comments that just trigger my BS detector generally) in 5 minutes with Google, Wikipedia, or even my PDF folder.

Comment author: shminux 29 June 2012 09:36:18PM 5 points [-]

I see a discussion that I think of interrupting to say, "Why don't you guys go on Google Scholar to learn more about this from people who have already thought about this?

A former coworker of mine used to say in such circumstances: " Shall we make it up or look it up?"

Comment author: gwern 29 June 2012 08:58:14PM 8 points [-]

'Discussion is not about Information'? If I saw people using Google routinely, I would wonder if maybe there's some sort of recentness issue; but I see even sophisticated young techies who literally grew up using Google failing to do so. I can't count how many times on LessWrong, Reddit, Wikipedia, or IRC I have spent 5 seconds in Google and refuted or confirmed someone's speculation. There's a reason LMGIFY is an acronym.

Comment author: jsalvatier 19 September 2012 08:16:49AM 1 point [-]

This is certainly true, I often do this myself and notice I could Google something and still don't do it. It's usually when I'm hanging out with friends and we're speculating about something because it's fun to speculate rather than because we want to figure something out.

Comment author: VincentYu 29 June 2012 09:21:19PM 2 points [-]

Huh, this was actually the first explanation that came to mind. I wanted to check if I was being too cynical (or too caught up in my own signaling), so I avoided mentioning it.

Comment author: JJXW 20 June 2012 09:08:27PM 1 point [-]
Comment author: RichardKennaway 08 October 2012 10:03:30AM 2 points [-]

If you're still looking for "Latest Methods for the Conception and Education of Intelligent Machines", my university library has the issue of the journal this appeared in (Behavioral Science 4: 248-51; July 1959). Let me know if you want a copy.

Comment author: JJXW 09 October 2012 06:36:30AM 0 points [-]

Thank you very much for the offer. I am not looking for this text anymore.

Comment author: beriukay 08 October 2012 03:35:56AM *  3 points [-]
  1. Andrew, A.M. Learning Machines, 1959. Found here.
  2. Booth, Andrew. How Much Can Machines Learn?.
  3. There's a book at the local library, so I can get you some selected chapters.
  4. In the works.
  5. Same as #3.
  6. Same, but may be in ebook form.
  7. Also not found.
  8. Same as #3.
  9. Williams, J.D. Toward Intelligent Machines
  10. Not found.

Edited: Added #2 to list. Edited again: Added #9 to list.

Comment author: jsalvatier 27 June 2012 05:17:37PM *  3 points [-]

Sorry, very little luck.

  1. Not found.
  2. Not found.
  3. I can't get a whole book, but I could probably get a chapter out of a book
  4. Same.
  5. Same.
  6. I don't think I can even get a chapter from this book.
  7. Not found.
  8. No access.
  9. Not found.
Comment author: Jack 18 June 2012 08:36:39PM 0 points [-]