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.

Incorrect comments on Rationality Verification Opportunity? - Less Wrong Discussion

0 Post author: beoShaffer 15 December 2011 10:11PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (14)
Tags: rationality verification

Comments (14)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Incorrect 15 December 2011 10:29:54PM *  3 points [-]

Since you declared Crocker's rules on the writing so explicitly...

teqnuices

from first paragraph
techniques*

verification for new sequnces before thinking of any solutions

from third paragraph
sequences*

yourself(I know t

from second paragraph
This should probably have a space.

genreally

from fourth paragraph last sentence
generally*

reliablity

from fourth paragraph first sentence
reliability*

While there are some time and talent limitation I would be willing to help with creating the measures, collecting and interpeting the data and any other necessary steps.

limitations*
interpreting*

It seems that most writers have a decent idea of what benefits they expect people to gain from their sequences'

from fourth paragraph third sentence
There is no need for an apostrophe after the word "sequences."

Then before running the sequence main sequence they could put out a call for people to complete these measures and send them in

"Then before publishing the sequence they could request people complete these measures and send them in" would be a bit better.

Your post reads like spoken communication. Almost every sentence could be improved.

Comment author: beoShaffer 15 December 2011 11:01:51PM 1 point [-]

Almost every sentence could be improved. Any specifics?

Comment author: Incorrect 15 December 2011 11:41:21PM *  3 points [-]

My writing skills are also lacking but I'll give it a shot…

Does the start of a new sequence present a way around this for that sequence's content?

The publishing of a sequence with new material may present an opportunity to perform rationality tests without the aforementioned difficulties.

The necessity and viability of having additional experimental controls, like a control group that just reports the measures, without reading the sequence will vary between sequences. But I think we will generally be fine with a simple before and after picture.

Whether additional experimental controls are necessary and/or viable will vary between sequences. For example, a control group could report their measurements without reading the sequence. Regardless, I think it is generally adequate to simply compare individual's measurements from before and after reading the sequence.

I guess I invoke Crocker's rules as well. Although, I think my sentences may be even worse…

Comment author: beoShaffer 16 December 2011 12:41:00AM 0 points [-]

Changed

The necessity and viability of having additional experimental controls will vary between sequences. For example, we could use a control group that doesn't read the sequence, or reads an alternate version while still filling out the same measures. But I think we will generally be fine with a simple before and after picture.

To a new version of my own. Also considered changing it to:

The necessity and viability of having additional experimental controls will vary between sequences. For example, we could use a control group that doesn't read the sequence, or reads an alternate version while still filling out the same measures. But I think we will generally be fine with a simple before and after picture.

Any advice on which is better?

Comment author: Antisuji 16 December 2011 02:39:03AM 0 points [-]

What do the asterisks mean?

Comment author: Incorrect 16 December 2011 03:07:02AM 0 points [-]

It indicates a correction

Comment author: Antisuji 16 December 2011 06:44:53AM *  0 points [-]

I apologize for being snarky. I am aware of the usage, though I am more familiar with the form in which the asterisk comes at the beginning of the line. I always assumed that the construction came from the way asterisks are used in footnotes, though of course I could be wrong about that. I had not thought to look at the Wikipedia page, so thanks for the link.

Perhaps I should have said that the use of asterisks as a correction marker is in a lower register than I am used to seeing on LW, at least to my eyes. It is fine for IM conversation (though it still grates a little*) but less so for a non-real-time format where you have the luxury of editing. I'll acknowledge that I am at 31 on the older side for this forum and so possibly not fully au courant.

[Edited for formatting.]

* Which I'm trying to get over. I expect it annoys me for the same reason ending rants with "/rant" does, though on a smaller scale.

Comment author: Incorrect 16 December 2011 07:25:53AM 1 point [-]

It is fine for IM conversation (though it still grates a little*) but less so for a non-real-time format where you have the luxury of editing.

I was correcting the original poster, not myself.

Comment author: billswift 15 December 2011 10:41:59PM 0 points [-]

How did you miss this one "teqnuices" in the first sentence?

Comment author: Incorrect 15 December 2011 11:08:15PM 2 points [-]

I didn't.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit