= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
asr comments on The Problem of "Win-More" - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (58)
Can you give additional example of this? I'm looking for parallels elsewhere in life where something is apparently useful, but is only useful in cases where you don't really need it, and nothing leaps to mind.
Skepticism. In theory it allows you to weed out bad ideas and find good ones, in practice it allows you to dismiss any idea you don't like.
Trading individual stocks? Often touted as a great way to become wealthy, but in reality only the most skilled are successful at it. Much better to buy index funds.
Picking individual stocks, being wary of "concern trolls" on the internet, making big elaborate complicated plans.
The last one is the only one I understand from your list, but it seems like a rather good concrete example. Making an elaborate plan is a great idea if it's definitely going to be useful, but otherwise it's a waste of time - like in HPMOR, when Harry makes a whole scheme of experiments to do that'll last for many months, but then it turns out his most fundamental premise is totally wrong. The big plan give him a big win when his assumptions are correct, but don't help him one iota when they're wrong, and he wastes a lot of time.
Moral: only make large schemes when you have strong evidence that they'll be very useful, and even then, first carry out any basic preliminary research, to check the assumptions going into the plan.
On #2 - Oh yes. Actual concern trolling is less common or harmful than dismissing actual ally concerns.
-- My "Murphy's Law" wall poster
(Note that this particular example is no longer true.)
I'm under the impression that today it is more like:
I don't think that was ever true.
Superstimulus food.
Most superstimulus food would be very useful to a starving person, so it doesn't fit the expressed criteria (specifically "...only useful in cases where you don't really need it...").
The idea of building a Minimum Viable Product comes to mind, especially if there's an externally imposed deadline. Some of the timed tests I've done for IT classes seem like purer examples of this than I'd expect to see in the real world - with some types of grading, you can't get a passing grade unless your thing /works/, and extra features don't count for much of anything unless your basic part is working.
The Arctic Expedition thought experiment also sounds similar.
added as top level comment: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/jsr/the_problem_of_winmore/aqgd