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

Will_Newsome comments on Searching for consequence-imagining games for children - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: paper-machine 19 February 2013 05:59PM

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

Comments (24)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 20 February 2013 02:46:47AM *  4 points [-]

For taking into account others' reasoning processes and how they interact with one's own, chess. Specifically the 'if I move here then he moves there then I move there' calculation algorithms. (Chess would probably also be good for general keeping track of consequences but other games might be able to teach that less discouragingly.)

Comment author: [deleted] 21 February 2013 01:26:28PM 1 point [-]

I think that (for adults) poker is even better, because you have to think probabilistically (life isn't a perfect information game); but I'm not sure it is feasible for a young child to learn it.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 22 February 2013 12:04:45AM 2 points [-]

Fights are messy but you practice kata precisely. (This applies to more than just chess vs. poker.)

Comment author: OrphanWilde 21 February 2013 03:15:42PM 0 points [-]

It might be absolutely fantastic, except for the fact that you get it -wrong- so much of the time. You have to be adequately skilled at anticipating consequences in order for chess to teach you that you should. If you're pretty poor at guessing what somebody will do (or if your opponents are sufficiently unpredictable), it can easily teach you the opposite; don't bother wasting time planning things that won't happen.