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.

passive_fist comments on Open thread, Nov. 3 - Nov. 9, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: MrMind 03 November 2014 09:55AM

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

Comments (310)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: passive_fist 05 November 2014 04:35:04AM 3 points [-]

This particular point is demonstrably false, at least as a general one: people acquire taste for foods and activities they previously disliked all the time.

I've done this a lot. Each time I did, it wasn't because I forced myself, it was because I saw some new attractive thing in those foods or activities that I didn't see before. Perception and enjoyment aren't constant. People are more likely to try new activities when they are in a good mood (for instance). Mood alters perception. In that sense I actually agree with Villiam_Bur. You can get more people to become 'rationalists' through engaging and fun activities. But you have to ask yourself what the ultimate goal is and if it can succeed for making people more rational.

However, an essential part of being instrumentally rational is figuring out the right amount of computing power to dedicate to a particular problem before acting.

The most powerful 'subsystem' in the brain is the subconscious system 1 part. This is the part that can bring the most computational power to bear on a problem. Making an effort to focus your system 2 cognition on solving a problem (rather than simply doing what comes instinctively) can backfire. But it gets worse. There's no 'system monitor' for the brain. And even if there was, if you go even more meta, optimizing resource allocation for solving problem X may itself be a much harder problem than solving X using the first method that comes to mind.

Except Reddit is clearly winning, in the "rationalists must win" sense, and Slashdot has all but disappeared, or at least has been severely marginalized compared to its late 90s heydays .

I know it's an extremely subjective opinion, but it seems to me that the slashdot system reduces spread of misinformation and reduces downvote fights (and overall flamewars). As for why slashdot has shrunk as a community, I suppose it's partly because reddit has grown, and reddit seems to have grown because of the 'digg exodus' (largely self-inflicted by digg) and the subreddit idea. Remember that there used to be many news aggregators (like digg) that have all but disappeared.

The idea here shouldn't be "let's adopt the most popular forum system", it should be "let's adopt the forum system that is most conducive to the goals of the community." And we have at least one important data point (Eliezer) indicating the contrary.

Comment author: bogus 07 November 2014 12:51:18AM *  1 point [-]

The idea here shouldn't be "let's adopt the most popular forum system", it should be "let's adopt the forum system that is most conducive to the goals of the community."

Disregarding your use of the word "community" for what's best described as an online social club, who's to say that we're not doing this already? The "forum system that is most conducive" to our goals might well be a combination of one very open central site (LessWrong itself) supplemented by a variety of more private sites that discuss rationality in different ways, catering to a variety of niches. Not just Eliezer's Facebook page, but including things like MoreRight, Yvain's blog, Overcoming Bias, Give Well etc.

Comment author: Vulture 08 November 2014 06:33:11PM 4 points [-]

The "forum system that is most conducive" to our goals might well be a combination of one very open central site (LessWrong itself) supplemented by a variety of more private sites that discuss rationality in different ways, catering to a variety of niches. Not just Eliezer's Facebook page, but including things like MoreRight, Yvain's blog, Overcoming Bias, Give Well etc.

This makes me a little suspicious as a solution, only because there doesn't seem to be anything particularly special about it besides being precisely the system that is already in place.

Comment author: Vulture 08 November 2014 06:31:56PM 0 points [-]

What do you see as being the distinction between a "community" and a mere "online social club"? Genuinely confused.

Comment author: bogus 08 November 2014 11:35:08PM *  0 points [-]

Because, y'know, communities actually exist, like, in the real world. More relevantly, they have a fairly important goal in protecting real, actual people from bodily harm and providing a nurturing environment for them to thrive in. Since this does not apply to virtual, Internet sites, calling them "communities" is quite misleading and can have bad side-effects if the metaphor is taken seriously, either by accident or through sneaking connotations. So I think it's better if folks are sometimes encouraged to taboo this particular term.