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.

Clarity comments on Stupid questions thread, October 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: philh 13 October 2015 07:39PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (223)
Tags: stupid_questions

Comments (223)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Clarity 15 October 2015 06:52:00AM *  0 points [-]

Interviewer: So Mr. Larity, you seem like a great fit for this job so far, do your values align with those of our company?

Clarity: (hmmm, I remember reading about values on the LessWrong wiki) ...

It is not known whether humans have terminal values that are clearly distinct from another set of instrumental values. Humans appear to adopt different values at different points in life. Nonetheless, if the theory of terminal values applies to humans', then their system of terminal values is quite complex. The values were forged by evolution in the ancestral environment to maximize inclusive genetic fitness. These values include survival, health, friendship, social status, love, joy, aesthetic pleasure, curiosity, and much more. Evolution's implicit goal is inclusive genetic fitness, but humans do not have inclusive genetic fitness as a goal. Rather, these values, which were instrumental to inclusive genetic fitness, have become humans' terminal values (an example of subgoal stomp).

Humans cannot fully introspect their terminal values. Humans' terminal values are often mutually contradictory, inconsistent, and changeable.

Interview: Carlos, I was asking you about values?

Clarity: Oh yeah, I reckon I have those values, so yeah, I'd make a great fit...

How do you communicate in the instrumental rationality real world when your mind is immersed in the epistemic rationality world, if that makes sense? Hopefully the situation I've described illustates what I'm trying to say

Comment author: MathiasZaman 15 October 2015 09:52:29AM 7 points [-]

Answer the question the interviewer means, not the question as you'd break it down on Less Wrong. Or more broadly: adapt your communication to the intended argument and goal.

In this particular example, you should know the values of the company before you end up at the interview, so this answer should be: Yes, followed by one or two examples show that your values match those of the company.

Comment author: Nornagest 15 October 2015 08:06:20PM *  2 points [-]

If you find yourself so engrossed with abstract epistemic considerations that you can't deal with concrete ones, it may be time to start wondering how much instrumental rationality your approach to this epistemic rationality thing is buying you.

The best players of any game usually do a lot of systematizing, but there is such a thing as too much meta.

Comment author: [deleted] 16 October 2015 04:33:05AM 1 point [-]

Where your mind is is based on your mindset going into the interview. If you're thinking all this when the interviewer asks the questions, you definitely haven't practiced enough, and you didn't spend the time before the interview getting into the right mindset.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit