= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaZ comments on What false beliefs have you held and why were you wrong? - 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 (364)
I believed that the composition of a rational rotation of a sphere and another rational rotation of a sphere will be rational. (By a rational rotation I mean a rotation of a sphere around some axis which in radians is a rational multiple of pi, and thus will end up putting the sphere back where it started if you apply it enough.) Counterexample: Two 30 degree rotations each around a different axis with the two axies perpendicular to each other. I believed this because I was too used to thinking about the two-dimensional case, where it is trivially true.
Until very recently, I was convinced that it was extremely unlikely that any form of adiabatic quantum computing would have any chance at working at providing speedups, either asymptotically or practically. This belief came to a large extent as what was in retrospect an irrational reaction to the junk and bad hype that has been repeatedly coming from D-Wave. I changed my position when Scott Aaronson made this comment (comment number 25).
More mind-killing territory: Until about 3 days ago, I was convinced that claims that mass shootings were increasing in the US were due purely to media scare tactics and general human tendencies to see things as getting worse. This article made me strongly update against that. Since then, I've seen this response and this one which were both deeply unpersuasive as responses go.
Even more potential mindkilling: Having read more of Slatestarcodex, I've become convinced that he's correct that there really is a substantial fraction of what self-identifies as the "social justice" movement, primarily in an online context, that really is toxic, and that the rest of the left and the serious, sane part of the SJers aren't doing enough to call them out on it. On the flipside, "Gamergate" has convinced me that there's still a very real need for a vocal feminist movement, and that latent misogyny is still pretty common. Edit: To specify what this means in an operational sense, that there are a lot of SJers out there who are making personal attacks or calls for censorship against those with whom they disagree.
I was convinced in 2008 that Obama was going to be good for civil liberties. I don't think I need to discuss in any detail why that was wrong or how I got convinced otherwise, since the reasons should be pretty obvious.
I also made this mistake (although, to be fair, on the issue of torture, Obama genuinely was an improvement.)
My current belief is that, rather being grossly mistaken about the character of the former Constitutional law scholar/sponsor of a bill requiring videotaped confessions, I was grossly mistaken in underestimating the corruptive influence of the concentrated power of the executive branch/national security apparatus on anyone who wields it. I no longer think real reform will come from any President of any background; if reform is ever to happen it would require the legislative branch to actually prioritize reigning in the executive branch.
How do you now? The Obama administration continues to ban photographing equipment which was one of the policies to suppress evidence of US torture.
Torture got outlawed in the late Bush administration. People responsible for the torture project had no problem raising in influence within the Obama administration. The Obama administration continues to run black sites.
Is it possible that the reason for change was secret information instead of corruption?
No.
I personally updated on the question the moment Obama got elected and choose his cabinet. If he would have wanted to change something he would have chose a cabinet of people who wanted change. He didn't.
Politics is about people. Making someone like Rahm Emanuel his chief of staff is a clear sign about his intentions.
Secret information is the tool of corruption.
I don't remember from where the quote is, but "The best way to control somebody is to control his information channels". Especially given that once you're privy to secret information you tend to discount the opinions of others who do not have access to it.
Secret information can explain the change whether it is true or false. We can only guess.
Is there a solution? Keep the president in the dark? Make classified security data public?
What exactly is the problem you want to solve?
Corruption. Am I being vague enough?
Heh. Let me be less vague. The problem is the capture and control of elected officials by the entrenched bureaucracy and associated interests. It's a well-known problem. I am not aware of good non-bloody solutions.
Of course there is also the universal "power corrupts" which doesn't help.
Just out of curiosity, you do realize the reason countries keep information related to national security secret?
Yes, of course, but the point is that there are costs (including non-obvious ones) to keeping a bunch of information secret.
What is unpersuasive about the responses to Mother Jones?
They're exactly what I thought when I read it. Actually, I had a more specific thought: what changed in 2011 is that they started collecting data live, rather than through archives. Of course, rejecting a data set because it was produced by hand in an ad hoc manner does not give you a replacement data set and thus does not produce an actual analysis. But the Reason link suggests Duwe's data as a replacement. Since he starts with official data and only uses media coverage to fill in details, he isn't subject to temporal bias.
I agree that Duwe's point is the closest thing there to a decent argument against MJ's data. But I think the accusation that there data is "cherrypicked" is not reasonably supported. The entire paragraph in Siegel's piece where he argues for this is essentially ignoring that what they are using is what fits closely with the common intuition of what is a mass shooting. The only one which one could plausibly take out of that set is Fort Hood but it doesn't alter the data very much.
Most of Siegel's points are correct but not relevant to the question of increases of shootings. For example, he's correct that there's a serious measuring issue with whether shootings are stopped by others with weapons, and he's also correct that even if the trend identified by MJ is accurate it is still a tiny fraction of total crimes and will remain so, but that's not actually relevant to evaluating the central claim.
What about the methodology of starting with news reports? These have strong biases that probably change by time. And how did they locate decades old news reports? A recency bias is to be expected. (Added: Duwe has a paper about this!)
Their definition is pretty reasonable, except for the part where they make tons of exceptions. The examples they gave of the exceptions that they made sound intuitive, but what about all the exceptions that they didn't talk about? Why didn't they include the Ridgewood Postal murders? Since they don't actually have a consistent rule, it's impossible to decide if they applied it to this case, or if the actual criterion was that it was too old.
Added: I tried spot-checking a few examples from Duwe's book against the MJ list. On pages 115-116 he lists 12 high profile workplace mass shootings. In addition to Ridgewood, they omit Alan Winterbourne and Willie Woods, both very straight-forward examples. If they miss these high profile examples, why would you expect them to reliably find others?
Thinking about this more, I think you are correct. The data is much too spotty to make a strong conclusion.
The last 30 years of such claims are not due to anything that happened in 2011.
Sure, that's certainly a valid point. It doesn't make the people saying this in the 1980s or the 1990s or the 2000s correct in any way shape or form. And it is possible that the media's current claims are completely disconnected from the uptick. The relevant bit is updating that there really has been a statistically significant uptick. (Especially because my priors based on general declining crime rates would have been to if anything suspect the opposite.)
Also, what about you? Did you have this opinion before 2011?
What do you mean? I thought I made that clear. My opinion was well before 2011 and remained my go to comment until I read that article that there was no increase at all and that any claimed increase was purely media hype.
Your opinion about newsmedia was correct the whole time. This led you to ignore Mother Jones in 2012, but still your beliefs about the trends were correct for most of the time you held them.
What is the correct course of action?
Ignoring the newsmedia is clearly optimal. In particular paying attention to MJ writing on the same data set in 2012 would have produced the belief that spree killings had increased in 2006, an error according to your current MJ beliefs, though of course MJ doesn't notice the change. Maybe if you wait a few years, they'll convince you that nothing changed in 2011, only in 2015.
I don't think so. I had read similar articles in the past and was generally unpersuaded.
Minus the online bit, this is fully generalizable against any political group, (and a lot of non-political groups as well). Which groups do you choose to lambast for "not calling out toxic members of that group"? Presumably the groups that you don't like. This is the art of politics.
"I don't have a problem with X group, but you have to agree that the subset Y of them are really horrible so lets continue to talk about how horrible they are" is Dark Arts to the max.
This is a accurate description of a common political behavior.
But recognizing this doesn't mean that all groups must actually have symmetrically malign subgroups, or that the mainstream in every group has the same relationship towards these subgroups. You can support the mainstream positions of both group A and group B, but be more critical of group B due to the existence of a subgroup you consider malign.
Yes of course, and most political (or other) groups are filled to the brim with self criticism. And this is very difficult to confuse with the phenomenon I am describing. In particular, if you only ever talk about how horrible subgroup B is and never suggest ways of improving the movement and you use the same language to describe subgroup B and the movement at large then you are probably engaged in politics and not constructive criticism.
This is a good example of in group criticism. The author calls out members of his political affiliation for making a stupid argument, presents an alternative framework for understanding the issue and moves on.
Repeatedly talking about how horrible subgroup B is not an example of in group criticism.
Meta-level point: out group criticism can be well reasoned and valuable. It is more often a politicized rhetorical weapon. The phenomenon I am describing is usually the latter.
That, and I was convinced that he would be a competent President. I did not expect the the degree of ineptitude that is apparent now.
Can you give examples?
What sort of measure are you using?
I also have a sense Obama has not been an effective President, but I've no idea how to objectively measure that.
Obamacare, an excellent idea and long overdue, but implemented and deployed in the worst way possible, is a typical example. The Ebola crisis response is another. Handling of the Snowden affair... Take almost any issue, political or economic, international or domestic, and it has been botched pretty bad, not out of malice, but out of incompetence. Well, maybe the Quantitative Easing is an exception, I am not qualified to judge.
In my view, it's always so hard to tell what was truly "botched". Further, how can we know what level of influence the President has in such cases where something actually was botched? Regardless of what someone's politics are, the federal gov't and all the agencies that are somehow intertwined with it is huge, and I'm not sure to what extent one man's incompetence has much to do with avoiding apparent gaffes that show up in the media.
Obamacare is a strange example of Obama's incompetence, I think. I mean, they tried to roll out a hotly controversial brand new program in a nation of 300+ million people. It seems very likely in my view such a rollout would be loudly criticized for it's flaws no matter how well it went. And it's so early... might be a huge success or a big failure... no clue.
Ebola is another one I'm not sure about—How can we know what good looks like? And how can we tie that to Obama? Something like Ebola dominates the news cycle for x days/weeks and it seems to become evidence that things were botched; evidence that the guy in charge blew it. I mean reasonably, what could Barack Obama do about the spread of the Ebola virus? He listens to his expert advisers and makes a decision. Then some huge chain of command takes over, with possible weak links and mistakes poised to happen from the President down to the doctors and researchers on the front lines. Certainly possible it's the President's fault, but it seems unlikely.
Anyway, it seems to happen to both Reds and Blues. Make it political and try to tear down the other guy's heroes and leaders.
Compare his performance with other presidents.
All the "botches" suggested above are one-off affairs, there are no similar episodes to compare to.
Are you saying earlier presidents never had opportunities to botch things?
For any president, you can write down a list of bad things that happened, or policy initiatives that did not turn out well. But it's hard to know if that is due to the sitting president being unusually bad, or just the circumstances being unusually bad. E.g. Obamacare has various flaws compared to an ideal health care system, and it would have been better if the websites had worked on schedule. But on the other hand Obama actually managed to pass some kind of universal health care (something that illustrious names like Clinton and Ted Kennedy had tried and failed). So does that mean that Obama is a bad health-care reformer, or an exceptionally good one? It's hard to know, because we can't contrafactually plonk down Abraham Lincoln in the 2008 White House chair and see how he will perform.
The key problem is that it's worse then the system that was in place before.
How?
Lots of variables. And what sort of objective measure would you use?
http://www.vox.com/2014/5/20/5732208/the-green-lantern-theory-of-the-presidency-explained
Summary: The President doesn't have all that much freedom to control the government. The office was designed that way.
I agree that there is very little direct power. However, the President has a lot of power in picking the executives running various governmental departments. And staffing them with competent administrators and not political appointees is the most important way the President can influence decision making without actually having to make the day-to-day decisions. This is a pretty standard advice to middle and upper management. Obama failed miserably in this. Sibelius and Napolitano are classic examples of obvious incompetence, I'm sure you can name many more. On the other hand, Frieden appeared very competent... until last month. So there is that. And whoever advised Obama on how to deal with Snowden should never be allowed to advise again.
I do not understand your sphere rotation example because I can't visualize that 3D example. Any chance someone can help out?