Open thread, Nov. 02 - Nov. 08, 2015
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.
4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.
Loading…
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (194)
This may be a silly question, if complex regional pain syndrome is 47 out of 50 on the McGill pain scale, where would 'torture' be?
Reminds me of a joke where a kid in great pain is asked by a doctor to rate how much it hurts on a scale from 1 to 10 where 10 is the most pain he can imagine, and the kid says "1."
That is from xkcd.
What specific method of torture? I'd assume that many methods are designed to get as high as possible, but there are others that are much lower and instead involve other negative sensations besides pain.
Agreed. "Torture" as a concept doesn't describe any particular experience, so you can't put a specific pain level to it. Waterboarding puts somebody in fear for their life and evokes very well-ingrained terror triggers in our brain, but doesn't really involve pain (to the best of my knowledge). Branding somebody with a glowing metal rod would cause a large amount of pain, but I don't know how much - it probably depends in the size, location, and so on anyhow - and something very like this on a small scale this can be done as a medical operation to sterilize a wound or similar. Tearing off somebody's finger- and toenails is said to be an effective torture, and I can believe it, but it can also happen fairly painlessly in the ordinary turn of events; I once lost a toenail and didn't even notice until something touched where it should have been (though I'd been exercising, which suppresses pain to a degree).
If you want to know how painful it is to, say, endure the rack, I can only say I hope nobody alive today knows. Same if you want to know the pain level where an average person loses the ability to effectively defy a questioner, or anything like that...
I want to learn to play the Dataridoo. Is Swirl the right choice if I want to graduate into a career in machine learning, but failed at learning Python, and managed to learn Stata? Also I'm shit at concentrating, and it's the only learning platform that doesn't confuse me with all the features. I kid you not I took months to figure out how to use LessWrong. I may be stupid, but I am dedicated. Once I find the best platform for me, I'll stick to it. But good recommendations now may save me months later.
Pardon my candour, but if you are "shit at concentrating", are readily confused by things, and found Python too difficult to learn, then you might want to consider whether machine learning is a good choice of career.
(I gravely doubt that you are in fact stupid, and given sufficient dedication I expect you could do it, but it seems like a lot of pain. Are you sure it's worth it?)
I am fairly confident it will be worth it. I'm not good at a whole lot of other things too. But, big data is said to be a profitable career trajectory in the long term. Most if not everything I do for my career is fairly painful, but I try to enjoy it as I do it and I'm grateful for the experience. The question I ask myself is: what could I be doing instead? And I honestly don't have a lot of better things to be doing anyway, haha.
How strong are your math skills? Did you have IQ testing done?
Mathematicians don't give a shit about IQ. When was the last time you heard Terry Tao talk about IQ?
Writing papers >>>>> psychometrics.
I don't claim that they do.
Clarity speaks of himself as stupid and the fact that he failed to learn python is indication of that. If his IQ is <100, I think that would be a valid ground on which to advice him against seeking a career in machine learning.
That's exactly the purpose for which IQ test were designed.
I think it would be useful to taboo "stupid." It is not a useful word.
Tabooing "stupid" is what asking for IQ is about and why I asked about IQ in this context.
Except you are not tabooing anything then, you are just substituing "low IQ" for "stupid." The point of tabooing stupid is to get binary classification out of an inherently complicated multidimensional problem.
The request of tabooing in general is a request for more cognitive work.
Scoring low on a specific test is something more complex than a label. Changing a vague term with a operationalised term is something that often makes sense for tabooing.
I think you confuse cognitive work with explicitely describing cognitive work. When it comes to speaking about negative features of other people it's worthwhile not to say every negative thing that can be said publically.
This is only a weak evidence for non-high IQ.
I know a few people who had bad opinion about their IQ, and when I convinced them to take the test, they scored above 130. It's because they believed the stereotype of "high IQ = math prodigy", and they happened to be average at math simply because they focused their lives on something else.
I haven't implied that it's strong evidence, for me the available evidence was enough to raise the question. The answer to that question matters for whether or not to tell him not to seek a career in machine learning.
I do think that for this purpose the testing that tells him that he's above average in math might be enough.
That's because they are an exclusive high-IQ club to start with.
Take someone who scored in 300s on his SAT -- would you recommend him to try to become a mathematician?
What do you suppose Ramanujan's IQ was? Do you think Hardy cared?
No one has any idea since he lived before IQ tests.
That's like saying a basketball coach doesn't care about the player's height, he only cares how high can he jump.
IQ is not like height. Height is a fairly objective physical measurement that is directly relevant for basketball because of the game setup. IQ is the result of a projection of an extremely high dimensional space into a single number that is not directly relevant for mathematics (people do mathematics in an extremely heterogeneous way). Erdos, Ramanujan, and Groethendieck were all top notch and were all very very different from each other. Erdos I think couldn't tie his shoes. Ramanujan was an Indian peasant. Groethendieck wasn't exactly a high functioning individual.
A better analogy would be if a basketball coach cared about "hit points" (determined by whatever methods doctors use, slatestar would know more).
How is it not "directly relevant"? What do you think the average IQ of mathematicians is, do you imagine it's anywhere close to the population average?
Being able (or not) to tie one's shoes or being an Indian peasant are NOT indicators of IQ. Not being socially successful is not an indicator of low IQ either.
I understand your point that genius mathematicians are really, really weird people. But I see no contradiction there, it's perfectly possible to have high IQ and be really weird.
Ramanujan was a Brahmin. "Peasant' isn't quite appropriate.
In NFL they do care about intelligence tests.
What do you mean with "failed at learning Python"?
I tried to learn it on my own first, and didn't really pick up on anything.
I tried to learn it at university then, and failed that course.
As more and more helpful resources came online, I tried learning from them, and didn't end up learning it. I think my brain works very differently to most people. There are some things which simply require a kind of functioning I really don't have. It seems languages are the frontier of that - where I have it in me to learn exceptions, whereas I can't learn most. It does seem to generalise to languages - I couldn't even become bilingual even though my parents speak another language and continuously tried to teach it to me, then sent me through school for it. At one point I learned how to read in this one other language and latter forget - can't read that stuff at all now, which is kinda odd.
Anyway, I've managed to learn Stata. And R is for statistical programming like Stata. So, I suspect I could learn it. Though, Stata is more GUI-like and you can't do machine learning with it.
I don't really think this is the case, since you are using correctly English, which is far more complicated than Python. Just to be clear: complicated = has more rules and is more ambiguous.
That's really not how primary v.s secondary language acquisition works. Also k. complexity isn't the same as cognitive complexity.
I know of only one study on the neurobiology of programming language comprehension. It stacks evidence in favor of the theory that the brain uses the same areas of the brain associated with natural language processing (BA 6/44).
On the other hand, studies in bilingual aphasia shows conflicting evidence: some patients lose/recover only one of the language following a brain lesion, while others shows modifications at both languages at the same time.
So, if you think you have neurological deficiencies regarding the acquisition of Python, I think (wild speculation ahead) that you should show other signs of impairment in the acquisition/use of primary/secondary language. For example, were you able to learn Mata?
Regarding K complexity, the difference in cognitive load is exactly my point: if for you manipulating something that has low complexity has higher complexity, it means that something is wrong in the way you learned it.
*Great research. Thanks for looking at the evidence, I didn't know those things and I'll try to take (admittently, a very poor and unbacked up claim on my part that I'm sorry for) your approach in the future.
*I have yet to try learning Mata -I'm unclear of its applications. But, I've shown decent skill in the basic neuropsychological components of second language aquisition from military intelligence analysis testing. On the other hand I've been fairly bad at learning languages at school. May just have been the classroom format though!
Didn't think of it that way. Wow!
Edit: It's just hit me how complex this phrase is:
I can't even conceive of what level of abstraction to place 'the way I learned a given thing' between the sandwhiches of cognitive and k complexity...
In fact that may be because it's incommesurable within the domain of discourse of computational complexity
Formal languages require quite a different kind of thinking than natural ones do. It's not just a matter of comparing their complexity.
Unfortunately, there's only one study about the neuropsychology of programming language, but it does contradict your assertion.
Or at least, if it requires a different thinking, that thinking is done with the same area used for natural language.
The fact that made Stata easier to learn is that it's GUI like. R isn't. I see no reason to believe that learning R on a level where you can do machine learning with it is easier than learning python. Python has much better documentation than R. It has functions that are much more reasonably named.
So, apparently NLP is pseudoscience, and now I'm confused. Does anyone actually claim
If there are no claims to any of the above, what exactly was discredited?
I think homeopaths and faith-healers could probably dredge up a few convincing-seeming anecdotes as well.
The wikipedia article you linked to presents numerous meta-analyses in support of the claim that NLP is a pseudoscience. If you want to know what they think they've discredited, read them.
There's research that indicates that the NLP Fast Phobia Cure produce effects but there no research that it's better than other CBT techniques.
I consider basic claims by Bandler about rapport as nowadays accepted by psychology as mimicry of bodylanguage. As far as I see nobody cited Bandler for that and mainstream psychology developed their ideas about mimicry separately decades later.
The idea that there are eye accessing cues that are the same in every person that NLP taught in it's early days has been shown to be false in methodically bad studies and it's not taught anymore by Bandler and good modern NLP trainers. You will however still find articles on the internet proclaiming the theory to be true as claimed in the early days of NLP.
In Bandler latest book he mostly talks about applying an idea about strengthing emotions that you want by spinning them in your body and disassociating negative emotions. I'm not aware about good published research around those mechanisms.
Another significant claim of Bandler is that he can cure schizophrenics. I don't know his approach with schizophrenics works and as far as I know there no research investigating it.
NLP trainers after Bandler are not in the habit of using language with the goal of saying things that are objective true, but focus on saying things that they believe will produce positive change in the person they are talking with.
Bandler is not open about what he beliefs he's doing when he's training NLP trainers. Science itself rests on people openly stating what they believe.
Bandler does tell people at the end of his NLP trainer programs that there no such thing as NLP, so the issue of whether he decides whether or not his methods are NLP is not straightforward.
NLP works very differently with epistomological questions. It has a different approach to the question of how you teach a person skills to be a good therapist than mainstream psychology.
I'm aware that Strugeon's law is in full effect within the NLP community, my questions were specifically about Bandler and his results.
I fail to see how anything you said has an impact on the observation that Andy did not need to return to the mental institute. Unless you dispute at least that single claim, the lack of research is better explained with the hypothesis that the researchers failed to understand the topic well enough to account for enough variables, like how Bandler almost always teaches NLP in the context of hypnosis.
If whatever Bandler does is producing verifiable results, shouldn't it be at least an explicit goal of science to find out why it works for him, as opposed to whether it works if you throw an NLP manual at an undergrad? Shouldn't it be a goal of science to find out how he came up with his techniques, and how to do that better than him?
YES!
Personally, I wouldn't take Bandler very seriously because of the whole "narcissistic liar" thing and the fact that the one intervention of his I saw was thoroughly lacking in displayed skill (and noteworthy result), but yes, you should look at the experts, not at the undergrads handed a manual designed by the researcher who isn't an expert himself. It's much better to study "effectiveness of this expert", not "effectiveness of this technique". I'd just rather see someone like Steve Andreas studied.
I know from personal experience that even people with good intentions will strawman the shit out of you if you talk about this kind of thing because there's so much behind it that they just aren't gonna get. Ironically enough, Milton Erickson, the guy who Bandler modeled NLP after, allegedly had this exact complaint about NLP ("Bandler and Grinder think they have me in a nut shell, but all they have is a nutshell." )
A while ago I would have agreed, today I'm not sure whether that would go somewhere. I think you need researchers with both scientific skills and which actual abilities.
Part of the reason why I respect Danis Bois so much is that after he was successful at teaching bodywork he went and worked through the proper academic way because he found the spiritual community to dogmatic. He got a real PHD and then a professorship.
For hypnosis it likely would have to be similar. Someone who went deep into it. Who lives in the mental world of hypnosis and does 90%+ of his day to day communication in that mode but who then feels bad about the unscientific attitude of his community. A person who then starts a scientific career might really bring the field forward.
Yeah, I see the distinction you're getting at and completely agree. I was referring more to showing "hey, this can't be nonsense since somehow this guy actually gets results even though I have no idea what he's doing", which is an important step on its own, even if it's not scientific evidence behind individual teachable things.
Look at the state of pyschology today. They tried to replicate 100 findings. A third checked out. A third nearly checked out and another third didn't check out at all.
If you are a psychologists at the moment and get embarrased as a result, you want to move in a direction where more results replicate. Studying highly performing people like Steve Andreas could very well not help with that goal.
Right.
To me, that looks like a slightly different angle on the same thing. If you want to nail down some things so you can say "hey look, we know some things", then studying high performing people wouldn't be the way to go. If, on the other hand, you're pretty okay with saying "hey look, of course we don't know anything, that's why we're still in exploration mode, but look at all this cool shit we're sifting through!", then it starts to look a lot more appealing.
It certainly doesn't surprise me that this kind of research isn't being done, and I can empathize with that embarrassment and wanting to have something nailed down to show the nay sayers. I also find it rather unfortunate. It strikes me as eating the marshmallow. Personally, I'd rather fast for a few days then drag back a moose.
That, actually, depends on whether this cool shit is a stable pattern or just transient noise. Looking at cool-shit noise is fine as an aesthetic experience, but I wouldn't call it science (or "exploration mode" either).
And, of course, there is the issue of intellectual honesty: saying "we found this weird thing that looks curious" is different from saying "we have conclusively demonstrated a statistically significant at the 0.0X level result".
I suspect you'll go off chasing butterflies and will never get anywhere, if we're getting into hunter-gatherer metaphors.
That's a terrible aesthetic experience. Your sense of aesthetics is supposed to do something
That's a very reasonable thing to suspect. It's a less reasonable thing to take as given, especially considering the size of the prize and the ease of asking a hunter "ever killed anything?".
Science itself is about the search for finding knowledge and not about sifting through cool shit. I also consider it okay that our society has academic psychologists who attempt to build reliable knowledge.
I think it's worthwhile to have different communities of people persuing different strategies of knowledge generation.
I don't disagree with any of the statements you made, and none of them are required to be false for my point to be valid.
I'm kinda getting the impression that you aren't being very careful or charitable in your reading of my comments. Is that impression wrong?
Given the current scientific framework you don't change a theory based on anecdotal evidence and single case studies. Especially when it comes to a person who's known to be at least partly lying about the anecdotes he tells.
What do you mean with the phrase "explicit goal of science"? The goals that grand funding agencies set when they give out grants? To the extent that you think studying people with high abilities is good approach of advancing science, I wouldn't pick a person who's in the habit of lying and showmanship but a person who values epistemically true beliefs and who's open about what they think they are doing.
I think the term pseudoscience doens't really apply for Bandler. For me the term means a person who's pretending to play with the rules of science but who doesn't. Bandler isn't playing with the rules or pretending to do so. That doesn't mean that he's wrong and what he teaches isn't effective but at the same time it doesn't bring his work into science.
It's typical for New Atheists to reject everything that's not part of the scientific mosaic as useless discredited pseudoscience. I don't think that's useful way of looking at how the world works. If you want to go further into that direction of thought, a nice talk was recently shared on the Facebook LW group: Scientific Pluralism and the Mission of History and Philosophy of Science
For full disclosure, I do have a decent amount of NLP training with Chris Mulzer who attended Bandlers trainer training program every year for a decade. I know multiple people who attended seminars with Bandler.
Oh, I see the problem now. You're waiting for research to allow you to decide to do the research you're waiting for. When the scientific framework tells you there isn't enough research to reach a conclusion, doesn't it also tell you to do more research? Picking a research topic should not be as rigorous a process as the research itself.
Even if all the anecdotal and single case studies are false, shouldn't you at least be interested in why so many people believe in it? NLP is not a religion, you pick it up as an adult. Even if the entire NLP/hypnosis/seduction/whatever industry is just a giant crackpot convention, they still demonstrate enough persuasion techniques to convince people it's real. Shouldn't you be swarming over that with the idea of eliminating your suicide rate?
What do you mean when you say "you"?
I have more formal credentials with NLP then with academic psychology.
I have multiple friends who makes their living in that industry. One of my best friends worked for a while as a salesperson for Bandlers seminars. I don't have friends who have as much friends who have degrees in academic psychology.
I just understands both sides well enough to tell you about the situation we have at the moment.
NLP is arguably very difficult to analyze, because it's not a single body of coherent knowledge forming a model, rather than a mash-up of psychological techniques and some assertions about how the minds works.
I think that when you can extrapolate something that is definitely an assertion about the mind or how some techniques improves the life of people who use it, then you can test it. And it's usually found to be false.
There are however some assertions that turned out to be 'true' (that is, an experiment showed some effects), like the mirroring effect, and others that were borrowed from other fields or experiments.
It's better not to be too hang-up about the pseudoscience label: just know that when you talk about NLP, you are entering in a field of not necessarily related beliefs which are mostly false.
Health is good. Intelligence is sometimes associated with health. Wikipedia has two articles on the relationship between intelligence and health. The other is here. So wouldn't you want to know more about your intelligence?
Clarity's index of sometimes subtle neurological conditions that impair cognitive functionl
Kleine–Levin syndrome
Vascular dementia
Binswanger's disease
Autism
Different working memories
includes Asperger syndrome:
More on Central Coherence Theory here
Meningitis
Toxic encephalopathy
Consequence:
Accessibility:
Recovery:
I don't think trying to diagnose themself via a bunch of descriptions of rare illnesses is a good road way to learn more about one's intelligence.
If you had to select just 5 mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive variables to predict the the outcome of something *you have expert knowledge (relative to say...me) * about:
what are the 5 things that best determine the outcome?
Please tell us about multiple things if you are an expert at multple things. No time for humility know, it is better that you are kind teacher than a modest mute.
If you can come up with a better way I could ask this, please point it out! It sounds clumsy, but the question has a rather technical background to it's composition:
Research on expert judgement indicates experts are just as bad as nonexperts in some counterintuitive ways, like predicting the outcome of a thing, but consistently good at identifying the determinants that are important to consider in a given thing within their field of expertise, such as what are the variables that determine a given thing. The human working memory can only hold 7+/-2 things at a given time. So, tending to even more stressful situations where our memories may be situanionally brought down to a level of functioning commiserate with someone with a poorer memory, I want to ask for 5 things anyone could think about when they come across one or more of your niches of expertise that they can pay attention to in order to gather the most relevant information from the experience
Do you have a citation for this? My understanding was that in many fields experts perform better than nonexperts. The main thing that experts share in common with non-experts is overconfidence about their predictions.
Yep, follow the summary here to the Expert Judgement textbook if you like. I was skeptical too before I followed up this claim and actually read the textbook.
Top 4 web resources about the application of machine learning to public health:
As taught coursework
As a field of research
As independent scientific movements
In one computationally intensive field of public health
Feel free to add any non significantly overlapping, high quality resources in the comments, or to comment otherwise.
Posting here to avoid introducing an irrelevant aside on one of the main [ETA: Discussion-main, not Main-main] threads, regarding the "retrocausality" of Newcomb-like problems.
Causality is always bidirectional. It is information which only goes in one direction. Once you dissolve that distinction, the question is one of information, which doesn't need to involve any strange loops at all; the behavior of Newcomb-like problems isn't produced by your actions changing history, but by information about what your action will be changing the future, or having already changed it.
What's lost is that this kind of forward-facing information is at play all the time; pretty much every single one of us constantly does low-level prediction of everyone around them (avoiding running into people by predicting where they are going to walk, for a particularly low-level example), and usually (but not always) gets it right. What's unusual in Newcomb-like problems isn't the predictive element, but the uncanny accuracy of that prediction. But if somebody could predict with uncanny accuracy somebody's behavior in the future, we wouldn't resort to retrocausality as an explanation, but rather very good predictive power.
Which is to say, once you notice there is nothing particularly interesting or necessarily reality-violating happening in Newcomb, the issue dissolves substantially, and two-boxing as a statement of the value of human autonomy is about as meaningful as turning suddenly and walking into traffic because the fact that the drivers of cars anticipate that you aren't going to do that is some kind of affront to human dignity.
From Omnilibrium:
Should the public trust climatologists in the global warming debate?
Will Augur be the first successful decentralised prediction market?
Evidence? This is LessWrong.
Based on what I've read and the contents of the IPCC report, the match between models and climate change has been pretty good so far, actually.
As you mentioned, this is LessWrong. So someone (like me) will go and look at your link. And find that it doesn't talk about forecasts, it is predominantly concerned with whether models can reproduce historically observed features of the climate. In other words, the issue is just trying to get a good fit to historical data.
By the way, if you look at p.771 and around, you'll notice that the models have a lot of difficulties with the current "hiatus".
Exactly; that's what I said.
EDIT: To clarify, I'm trying to say that past models have had a good fit to data so far, so it's reasonable to expect they will continue to perform. This is certainly evidence towards climate models being able to carry out predictions, and it's how science should be done.
You make it sound as if they are just arbitrarily varying the parameters of the models to get a good fit. In reality, they are using model ensembles for various different emissions scenarios obtained from real-world data and seeing if the resulting predictions fall within a reasonable confidence interval of what was actually observed. The answer is: yes, they do.
There are several ways of interpreting this; I'd be glad to have a discussion about it if you're interested.
Why, then, are you talking about the models' fit when answering the question of whether the "climate models can predict weather changes over long term periods" (emphasis mine)?
Not arbitrarily, of course, but "varying the parameters of the models" is the most common and a very general method of getting "a good fit".
Do you mean something like cross-validation? I don't think they predict the future in this context.
What other way is there? Building a time machine?
How else can you estimate the suitability of models in making predictions than testing their past predictions on current data?
The usual plain-vanilla way is to use out-of-sample testing -- check the model on data that neither the model nor the researchers have seen before. It's common to set aside a portion of the data before starting the modeling process explicitly to serve as a final check after the model is done.
In the cases where the stability of the underlying process in in doubt, it may be that there is no good way other than waiting for a while and testing the (fixed in place) model on new data as it comes in.
The characteristics of the model's fit are not necessarily a good guide to the model's predictive capabilities. Overfitting is still depressingly common.
One possible answer is to look at how the then-state-of-the-art models in (say) 1990, 1995, 2000, etc, predicted temperature changes going forwards.
The answer, in point-of-fact, is that they consistently predicted a considerably greater temperature rise than actually took place, although the actual temperature rise is just about within the error bars of most models.
Now, there are two plausible conclusions to this:
It's not as simple as that. Most models give predictions that are conditional on input data to the models (real rate of CO2 production, etc.). To analyze the predictions from, say, a model developed in 1990, you need to feed the model input data from after 1990. Otherwise you get too wide an error margin in your prediction.
True. As I said, this is definitely evidence towards the suitability of the models, and certainly seems to be counter to the claim that "there is no evidence that climate models are valuable in predicting future climate trends.
That's definitely a possibility, but it's reasonable to think that the mathematics and science involved in the climate models stands on a firmer basis than economical analysis, and definitely a firmer basis than Samuelson's analysis.
I made this joke site: https://flashcash.money
It's often rational to burn cash on positional goods like Rolexes and bottle service at clubs, but FlashCash.money takes that value proposition to the logical extreme.
The problem is the site looks cheap. If I'm showing off how rich I am, I want something that looks elegant and refined.
People who value elegance are refinement are NOT the target demographic for that website X-)
It looks like letting math students flounder for a while before telling them how to solve a problem helps them learn.
I just (in, say, the last couple of days) got something like 50 downvotes, presumably all on old comments since I don't see any sign of a lot of downvotes on recent comments of mine.
This is the kind of thing that has got people banned in the past; if any moderator happens to be reading this and considers it worth investigating, I'd be interested to know the result.
I've contacted tech.
Thanks!
I think that you should have PMed moderators instead of posting about it in an open thread. You can get -50 karma, if, say, 5 people downvoted your posts to Main or meetup posts.
You can indeed, but I think I've posted exactly once to Main, it was over five years ago hence probably getting very few votes either way now, and existing votes on the post in question suggest that it would be very unlikely that five people would independently decide to downvote it in one day.
On the other hand, I've been hit by mass-downvoting more than once in the past, by a user who is widely (and with very good reason) believed to be active on LW with his (at least) third identity after the two previous ones were banned for downvote abuse.
The advantage of posting about it is that if indeed someone (whether or not the particular individual just alluded to) is mass-downvoting me, then they might be doing it to other people too, and some of those other people might see my comment and mention that it's happening to them, which might be useful to moderators if they're contemplating any sort of action.
Does anyone have any good recommended reading on being social? Stuff like understanding social situations and how to respond appriopriately. Understanding personality types and how to engage with them. How to make people like you can how to keep people's attention. I'd really love to learn these skills , as I feel I am deficient at them.
This handbook is written by a person with Asperger Syndrome and it's intended for other people with Asperger Syndrome, but it is very good even if you aren't autistic, because it spells out everything in detail and makes you explicitly think about all the rules and interpersonal skills.
The Charisma Myth by Olivia Fox Cabane is a book that helped a bunch of people on LW.
I'm not sure that's a good approach to the issue. Don't label other people with a pesonality type and then try to engage with them based on the label.
I think I would actually recommend this. If other people are deeply mysterious to you, then reading up on personality types and trying to recognize them in the wild is helpful training and theory.
The trouble is twofold:
The theory will be incomplete, and only give you broad understanding.
The theory will be limiting, in that you will be more likely to notice observations that match the theory than observations that do not agree with the theory.
You can ameliorate both troubles by learning multiple theories, and trying to hold them in your head / evaluate people along different ones simultaneously.
(There's a longer conversation here, about how much learning should be system 1 vs. system 2, and how to tell what level of development you are in a skill, and so on, but that's probably enough for now.)
Success in social interaction is not about holding more things in your head but often about holding less things in your head.
It's better to do exercises that raise physical presence as the one's suggested in "The Charisma Myth".
Sounds like we do need to go into the longer conversation.
I view most of these skills are something like the follows: at level 0, you have no clue what's going on; at level 1, you have a system 2 model of what's going on that's too slow / clumsy to operate successfully in real time; at level 2, you have a system 1 model of what's going on that's fast and good enough to operate successfully in real time.
Most people go directly from level 0 to level 2, with some level 1 help. Most language speakers don't have an abstract grammatical model of their language in their heads, some constructions "just look weird" or don't come to mind, and they often can't articulate rules even if they use them correctly.
For example, in English, why is something "harder" instead of "more hard"? Why is it "more difficult" instead of "difficulter"?* (This came to mind because my mother is teaching ESL classes and had been surprised that there was a simple underlying rule, which I could not successfully identify before the question was spoiled, even though for any particular word I could correctly determine whether 'more' or 'er' was appropriate.)
But there are situations where it seems better to go through level 1. If you're teaching someone a second language, for example, they're much more likely to be able to make use of abstractly stated grammatical rules than children are. If someone has already been a child and yet not developed a 'normal' level of social intelligence, then the normal approach is inadequate, and we need to consider alternatives.
When developing those alternatives, it's worth noting that the right approach for going from level 0 to level 1 (learning more grammatical rules into system 2) is different from the right approach for going from level 1 to level 2 (practicing the grammatical rules into system 1). So yes, someone who is at level 1 would not get much out of holding more things in their head, but someone who is at level 0 would.
(To elaborate even further, I think someone at level 0 probably has some feature of their personality / communication style at a fundamental enough level of their model that they won't generate hypotheses that contradict it, and thus large parts of human interactions will be fundamentally mysterious to them. The point of reading about personality styles and communication styles and so on is that it generates alternative hypotheses at that level--many 'nerds' do not realize that there are people out there who interpret statements as about relationship closeness instead of as about factual accuracy, and pointing that out to them is the fastest way to level up their interaction ability.)
* Single syllable adjectives get an "er" or "est," multi-syllable adjectives get a "more" or "most," at least most of the time.
I think the problem is that you ignore the physiological effect of being in your head and how it makes people less likely to want to engage in social interaction with you.
A problem that is about not being in contact with one's emotions is not helped by having concept with you can use to label the person with whom you are interacting.
I don't think that it's useful to people into the bracket of caring about relationship closeness and people who care about factual accuracy. Depending on the context of the conversation the same person will focus on a different layer of the communicatoin.
Schulz von Thun's model describe the issue well. You don't need to put people into categories for that.
I think that page oversimplifies the rule for constructing comparative forms. One-syllable adjectives definitely take suffixes and three-syllable adjectives take words, but two syllable adjectives are difficult. I think this page is largely correct. For two syllable adjectives, some terminal syllables (-y, -le) require suffixes and some (-ing, -ed, -ful, -less) require words. The rest are OK either way (quieter, more quiet).
This rule is incomplete. Most two-syllable adjectives ending in "y" can be converted to comparative form with "er". Some of these may be uncommon, but not all, and my spell checker agrees they are real words, in both British and American English.
Eg. Angrier, heavier, cleverer, friendlier, happier, lazier, tidier, etc. And even three syllable words can take "er": bubblier, foolhardier, jitterier, slipperier, many words starting with "un".
In the sense that you'll want to be able to model people and their reactions automatically and without needing to spend effort on it or it hogging up all your working memory, true. But if you're not good at modeling people yet, it may be better to practice it consciously until it becomes automatic.
These are not mutually exclusive.
Normal people don't model each other through putting each other in distinct mental categories (personality types) but via mirror neurons.
Being judgemental of other people doesn't get better by doing it automatically. I don't get anything when I have an automatic thought that tells me "the person I'm interacting with is a ISTP"
In social interaction "Get out of your head" is good advice for the average nerd. Judging another person as a ISTP rather keeps them in their head.
So, let's take autistic vs. neurotypical people as an example. As a general (but not iron-clad) rule, autistic people tend to read less social connotations into the meanings of words. As a result, they are often less likely to take offense from things that a neurotypical person might read as insulting. And as a result of that, they're more likely to prefer the kind of communication that's more direct and to the point. In contrast, with more neurotypical people, exactly the same kind of communication might come across as cold and blunt.
Knowing this lets me optimize my style of communication to the kind of person I'm talking with, more direct with autistic and more careful with neurotypical.
Now of course there are some autistic people you need to communicate carefully with, and some neurotypical people who prefer direct and blunt communciation. But if I have a higher prior probability on someone preferring direct communication, that lets me make some cautious probes to measure their reaction to that style of communication. Probes which could have a negative expected utility if I put a higher prior probability on the person being easily offended by more direct language.
This doesn't necessarily happen on a conscious level. Just having the background knowledge of neurotypical and autistic people differing on this dimension, helps me do this on a partially instinctive basis.
I wasn't explicitly taught this thing about how autistic and neurotypical people differ. It was something that I picked up by experience, from interacting with both kinds of people. But for learning this, it was important to have some kind of a mental handle for hanging the differing experiences on. If I hadn't known that there was such a concept as an autistic person, I couldn't have noticed the correlation between autism and the preferred style of communication. Rather my experience would just have been "different people react totally differently to the same kind of words, and it's totally mysterious to me when to use what kinds of words".
If you have more mental categories to put different people into, then if anything about them happens to correlate with those categories, it will become possible for you to notice that correlation. Without those categories, it'll be harder for you to generalize anything you learn about one person to other people you interact with. Maybe you learn that this particular person prefers direct communication and this other person prefers indirect communication, but when the third person shows up, you don't know what style to use with them. This will slow down the development of your social skills.
You might be able to do a bit better; learn a simple and catchy system like the True Colors personality spectrum (a simplified adaptation of the Myers-Briggs), and work on understanding why it works. (Or if you like, why it "works".) While you might guess someone's 'color' incorrectly, if you understand why everyone identifies at least a little with every color, you can start to use general, positive statements to identify what people like about themselves. It should be a productive exercise in understanding the average person's self concept.
Identifying cognitive distortions
Psychologists someone's hand out a worksheet with the names of cognitive distortions. Ie: mentalising. It is usually encumbrance upon psychiatric patients to pick up on trends for these distortions themselves from what their psychologists tells them.
For instance, my psychologists might intuit that something is paranoid while I don't. That certainly kills that one belief after a bit of reflection, but my mind remains generally predisposed to paranoid thinking in the next moments of conscious ideation too. They will never catch up with me that way.
I went to library bathroom a few minutes ago. It's night, and someone just happened to be there. A fairly Innocuous thought persisted in my imagination that the person who happened to already be there might think I was there to trouble him, since it seemed unlikely that two people should be in the bathroom at the same time at this time of night. A psychologist would usually point out that that's not strictly the case, and challenging assumptions is the best way of addressing these beliefs as far as they and we've known since Socrates at least.
But the thought only become apparent as aberrant when I considered, upon privellaging the hypothesis that my thoughts are biased towards paranoia from past experience, after considering the opposite of my thought. If I had entered the bathroom before him, it would seem like he was falling me, in my mind, or that I was planning for his arrival. Only this last thought, that someone might actually wait for someone stood out as aberrant and odd at the time. But it is very similar in notion to the others and they have since till now gradually becoming notions I consider highly unlikely.
I reckon there's a rationality technique I could generalise from this. Or I hope.
Gene editing saves girl dying from leukaemia in world first
...
Acute lymphoblastic leukemia and other blood tumors in which B-cells become malignant are extremely well-suited to this approach. You can cook up a T-cell that will react against B-cell specific proteins, inject it, and it will sense all the B cells around it and grow up to large numbers and kill all the B-cells and B-cell derived tumor cells in the patient's body. You can live without B-cells (with a hit to immune system strength) and they have some very cell-specific proteins. Going after B-cell malignancies with modified immune cells has been successfully done before.
I am loving the new twist though - rather than going through the process of extracting the patient's own T-cells and modifying them, they took a T-cell line they already had and destroyed its ability to ever respond to anything but the targeted antigen, meaning that a tissue-compatibility mismatch was irrelevant because it would never go after any foreign things it encountered other than the one coded target. The cells were apparently also modded to be resistant to chemotherapy drugs. The same cell line could be used in multiple people - though I'm sure that if any of the patient's own immune system remained at all the foreign T cells would eventually be killed off rather than becoming a permanent part of the immune system as sometimes happens when the cells come from the patient themselves.
Is Economics Research Replicable? Sixty Published Papers from Thirteen Journals Say “Usually Not” by Andrew C. Chang and Phillip Li
Note that their implicit definition of "replicable" is very narrow --- under their procedure, one can fail to be "replicable" simply by failing to reply to an e-mail from the authors asking for code. This is somewhat of a word play, since typically "failure to replicate" means that one is unable to get the same results as the authors while following the same procedure. Based on their discussion at the end of section 3, it appears that (at most) 9 of the 30 "failed replications" are due to actually running the code and getting different results.
Yes, there is a difference between "unable to replicate because we couldn't even attempt to replicate" (code and/or data are missing) and "unable to replicate because we tried and the results did not match". Either both or only the second case could be called "failure to replicate", depends on your preferred definition.
Still, while the second case is clearly "bad science" -- it's either mistakes or fraud -- the first case is "not science" because science doesn't work by trusting the word of the researcher. A well-known example of the first case is cold fusion.
Zombie physics: 6 baffling results that just won't die
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
This seems significant, but I'm not sure how to interpret it... Is it good news the ice sheet isn't shrinking or bad news that the sea level rise apparently came from other sources without us noticing?
Which sea level rise?
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images11/SeaLevelRiseRateChart2010.jpg
This is the global mean. Rise measured at any given actual shoreline will be different and sometimes even falling, due to local geology altering elevations of land at not-dissimilar rates in some areas (especially areas where post-glacial rebound is still occurring) as well as thermal expansion being uneven.
Yes. But the sea levels have been rising continuously since the time of the last glacial maximum. 10,000 years ago they were rising at a rather more dramatic rate, too.
Yep! My favorite bit of what went on during the end of the last glaciation is the way that it happened unevenly, a sedate constant flow of water from ice to the oceans interrupted by centuries here and there where sea level rose by at least 2-5 centimeters a year. Presumably that's what happens once an ice sheet becomes unstable and pieces of them collapse quickly and nonlinearly.
That was one of those "interesting times to live in"? Still it's peanuts compared to the mother of all floods :-)
Was something weird happening in the 1920s or is it just an optical illusion due to the black lines?
I think you'd see similar anomalies in 1880 and 1985 stand out with similar lines.
Interesting. Obviously if some place is still below freezing all year round (i.e. the bulk of East Antactica), global warming can easily increase ice mass due to increased snowfall. But I'd thought decrease in total ice mass was pretty well-established.
The amount lost in the Arctic is about a factor of 3 larger than the net gain in Antarctica, and West Antarctica as a subset of antarctica is losing ice on the net in a way that is likely to accelerate in the future. Also apparently Antarctica has been gaining ice on the net for 10,000 years according to the source, and it's a case of recent loss rate increases not yet balancing this normal gain rate.
Further quote from the article:
A late follow-up. I read an article on the study, and it turns out that the difference from previous estimates (which basically all showed a decrease in antarctic ice mass) comes from an interesting place. Everyone agrees on the height change in East Antarctica. But the studies that got a net decrease assumed that the change in height was due to recently increased snowfall, in which case the extra height will have the density of snow. This new study that gets a net mass increase assumes that the change in height is actually part of a long-term mass rebound from the last minimum, and if that's true then the density profile of the Antarctic ice sheet should be roughly constant, and the extra height will have the density of ice, which is ~3x that of snow.
I think the disagreement over this shows how big our error bars are.
Laszlo Babai (University of Chicago): Graph Isomorphism in Quasipolynomial Time (Combinatorics and TCS seminar)
G. Phi. Fo. Fum. by Scott Aaronson
It is interesting to compare the Less Wrong and Wikipedia articles on Recursive self improvement: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Recursive_self-improvement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_self-improvement I still find the anti-foom arguments based on diminishing returns in the Wikipedia article to be compelling. Has there been any progress on modelling recursively self improving systems systems beyond what we can find in the foom-debate?
Quoting Wikipedia:
Corporations are not superintelligences. Not in the narrow sense we use when we talk about AGI.
The whole idea of superhuman artificial general intelligence is that the machine would be better at everything that humans can do. Also, if the machine wants to specialize, it doesn't have to deal with humans: it could just create more copies of itself (okay, it would need to buy the hardware, but that's it) and let different copies specialize at doing different things.
Not sure if I understand it correctly, but this seems to me like an argument that "wealth = money, therefore the AI will trade with humans". If that is the intended meaning, I disagree. Money is just one way to get resources. You can also take them by force, steal them, convince people to donate to you, create them, discover them, et cetera. Just because the AI would use its intelligence to gather resources, it does not follow it will trade with humans.
Why would the AGI still have human cognitive constraints? Just because we can't imagine otherwise? Why would it depend on other people to get things done? If it can get some people to build robots, the rest of the work can be done by those robots.
Okay, maybe some of these arguments need much more thinking than I used now, but I wrote this to explain why the arguments in Wikipedia seem completely unimpressive to me. Most of them seem to be based on refusing the idea that anything, including any AI, could really be significantly smarter than humans. "The AI cannot do research in several fields at once, because humans can't. The AI will not have hands, and will therefore forever depend on humans. The only way an AI could get resources is to have a job, and then buy whatever it needs in the shop. This all ensures that AI is just another human, so other humans will have no problems to overpower it, if needed."
There are 4 computer memory designers. One is a major phone manufacturer, one is a major computer manufacturer and one is a major car manufacturer. The fourth, crucial, makes computer memory for their competitors. I reckon this is best if only example of a stable large scale unregulated efficiency monopoly.
I wish I was clever enough to understand computer memory, get in on the open hard ware movement and capitalise on Project Aras forthcoming release early next year! Imagine, an AppStore for hardware, sponsored by Google for android!
No. Producing memory cheaply needs volumne. Nothing that the open-hardware movement does changes the fact that you need scale to cheaply produce memory chips.
I'm also not sure whether you can produce memory chips without violating patents from those company so you need additional millions of capital for that.
I'm looking for an academic/science/technology enthusiast to cofound my new website with me.
Website is already built and nearing launch. I am looking for someone who can serve as an adviser and contribute directly to site content (I will explain the content in more detail to serious candidates). This will require knowing a lot about science, and a lot about how scientists think. He/she needs to be interested in new technologies and current events. From international affairs, economic policy, politics and ethical issues to cryptocurrency, biotech, physics and artificial intelligence- my ideal candidate will be a huge geek when it comes to these areas. I'm looking for an all around informed person who likes to research issues.
Ideally, you'll have experience in academia and/or science/tech.
I don't imagine this being a ton of work at first, it's just work that I need someone else to focus on. There will be equity. Message me if interested.
I would guess that you currently haven't said enough about your project to make anybody have serious interest to be part of your project.
Using the nick Osho is quite strange for a website about science. What's your background?
What is the website supposed to be about? How does it differ from what is out there at the moment?
Your post is all about what you want. What are you offering in exchange?
I said there would be equity.
Equity is only useful if one consider a business to be a good idea. If you want someone to join and be payed in equity you need to convince them that working on your project with you makes sense.
What is a computation? Intuitively some (say binary) states of the physical world are changed, voltage gates switched, rocks moved around (https://xkcd.com/505/), whatever.
Now, in general if these physical changes were done with some intention like in my CPU or the guy moving the rocks in the xkcd comic, then I think of this as a computation, and consequentially I would care for example about if the computation I performed simulated a conscious entity.
However, surely my or my computer's intention can't be what makes the physical state changes count as a computation. But then how do we get around the slippery slope where everything is computing everything imaginable. There are billions of states I can interpret as 1's and 0's which get transformed in countless different ways every time I stir my coffee. Even worse, in quantum mechanics, the state of a point is given by a potentially infinitely wiggly function. What stops me from interpreting all of this as computation which under some encoding gives rise to countless Boltzmann brain type conscious entities and simulated worlds?
I think everything is a computation, and all computations happen... but somehow, some of those computations happen "more" and some of them happen "less". (Similarly how in quantum mechanics any particle can be anywhere, but some combinations of particles "exist"more", and some "exist less", so in real life we don't percieve literally everything, but some specific situations.)
Without understanding the nature of this "more" and "less" it will not make much sense... and I don't really understand it.
If there are really infinite instances of conscious computations, then I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that there exists no more/less measure and simply we have no reason at all to be surprised to be living in one type of simulation than another. I guess my interest with the question was if there is any way to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, by having a reasonable more restrictive notation of what a computation is.
I think having a measure is exactly the way to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. But I am not really an expert on this.
I'm confused about your "interpretation". Lets say I throw together a bunch of random transistors. They compute a totally random function. What "encoding" can you possibly use to interpret this is a conscious mind?
Lets just say we already know what consciousness is and what algorithm the human brain uses. Maybe it's something like current neural networks. How would you find a computation of a neural network inside a random circuit?
I don't think you could. You'd need to find groups of logic gates which just happen to compute multiplication of two numbers. And other groups which computes addition. And another group which saves the state. And all of these groups would have to be connected in just the right way.
I think conscious minds are a very specific kind of computation. That's very unlikely to form by random chance.
Take the thermal noise generated in part of the circuit. By setting a threshold we can interpret it as a sequence 110101011 etc. Now if this list sequence was enormous we would eventually have a pixel by pixel description of any picture, letter by letter description of every book, state after state description of the tape on any Turing machine etc (basically a Library of Babel situation). Now of course we would need a crazy long sequence for this, but there is similar noise associated with the motion of every atom in the circuit, likewise the noise is far more complex if we don't truncate it to 0's and 1's, and finally there are many many many encodings of our resulting strings (does 110 represent the letter A, 0101 a blue pixel and so on).
If I chose ahead of time the procedure of how the thermal noise fluctuates and I seed in two instances of noise I think of as representing 2 and 3, and after a while it outputs a thermal noise I think of as 5 then I am ok calling that a computation. But why should my naming of the noise and dictating how the system develops be required for computation to occur?
Random sequences aren't really interesting. Even the digits of pi are believed to contain every possible sequence of integers. The hard part is finding where each sequence is located. The index is likely to be longer than the sequence itself!
And a sequence of digits isn't computation. A recording of your neural activity isn't conscious. It's just a static object.
But there is no computation happening there. It's just random noise. It's just as likely to output 5 as 6 or 3. There is no causal link between you inputting "2+3" and the output.
I agree with your sentiment. I am hoping though that one can define formally what a computation is given a physical system. Perhaps you are on to something with the causal requirement, but I think this is hard to pin down precisely. The noise is still being caused by the previous state of the system, so how can we sensibly talk about cause in a physical system. It seems like we would be more interested in 'causes' associated to more agent-like objects like an engine than formless things like the previous state of a cloud of gas. Actually I think Caspar's article was trying to formalize something like this but I don't understand it that well: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/msg/publication_on_formalizing_preference/
Read Causal Universes first if you haven't.
I think causality is the only requirement for "computation". Step A causes step B. A computation has happened. If A and B are independent, then there is no computation happening..
An unusually clear discussion of the failings of the p-values and what you can (or can not) expect from them. The author seems to have a slight allergy to the Bayesian approach though he freely acknowledges that what he is using is, in fact, the Bayesian approach :-/
I'm in the process of reading Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". It's interesting but it is quite dated. Is there a 21st cenutry book on the history and philosophy of science that you would recommend?
I haven’t read it, and I’m not sure it’s really on the same topic, but a lot of people like the Golem (de) by Collins and Pinch (1993/1998).
How can a work on the history and philosophy of science be outdated? I suppose new information could rewrite history, but I don’t think that happened. Philosophy is more likely to change, particularly as scientists respond to Kuhn, but largely, they didn’t.
New information and representations and analysis of old information are both possible. I don't remember if Kuhn himself focused on the case of Galileo, but a lot of people took him to be a paradigmatic case (sorry!) and Feyerabend undermined a lot of that through close re-examination of primary sources, in support of his own particular philosophy of science.
Mainly 50 years of new history happened. People came up with concepts like "evidence-based medicine" and a bunch of concepts about how science is supposed to progress.
After dealing a bit more with HPS (history and philosophy of science) I get the impression like logical positivism simple ignored the arguments made against it. The New Atheist crowd simply reject criticism of logical positivism as obstruce postmodernism but I never heard someone actually engage the kind of arguments that Kuhn makes.
After I wrote the post I found a lectures series by Hakob Barseghyan. He makes a lot of sense and yet, for some reason HPS isn't in popular culture. I don't understand why HPS doesn't get taught in high schools.
That's not a new concept. That's a straightforward application of the scientific method (and some common sense) to the area which stubbornly resisted and continues to resist it.
I think both Kuhn and Barseghyan would say that there isn't a single thing that's "the scientific method" and that believing in such a thing isn't defensible when you look at the history of science.
It's not exactly on the same topic, but I liked The Nature of Technology by Brian Arthur. When I read it, at first it seemed like he was stating the obvious, but over time I've thought about it more, and realized that a lot of people don't understand what is in his book, and that his framework is more useful than many others.
Maybe there are more up-to-date books, but it is hard for me to imagine any book having more insight per page than SSR. It is also incomparably well-written; even if you don't believe any of the philosophical claims, it is worthwhile simply as a lesson in how to write engagingly about scientific topics.
Yes, it's the book where I highlited the most things in my kindle.
I don't want to discourage anybody reading it. At the same time I want to know what to read as a follow-up.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/#6.4
What are time-efficient ways of finding people with similar interests and skills to cooperate with?
Find a community that someone else created of people with similar interests and skills (eg, lesswrong if you're looking to cooperate with other people interested in rationality
The most time-efficient way is to be open about who you are and what kind of people you are seeking so that other people can find you.
I've always been told something along the lines of "find a group based around a hobby that you like/ an interest that you have, and make friends through them," though I've been recently wondering if it's possible to guess in advance which groups might be more likely to contain the most potential close friends.
Personally, I've had an easier time making friends with bronies and HPMoR readers in meatspace than I have had with making friends with people participating in, say, service organizations or chemistry club. The most obvious explanation here is that I have more in common with people in the first two of these groups than I do with people in the last two of these groups. Still, I'm nevertheless tempted to posit something about the fact that signaling membership as an HPMoR reader, or as a brony, is reasonably costly to some people-- and that this might serve to filter out a portion of the would-be members of these groups who I'd be less likely to be friends with.
Another possibility: the first group of people have more free time than the latter and spending some free time together is quite important for building friendships.
I'll try to throw some suggestions at you, see what sticks:
Online:
- meetup.com
- searching for a specific hashtag in Facebook and befriend the people that shows up
- Kickstarter
Offline
- fliers with your contact info and the intended interests
- a post on some wallboard in a crowded community (that is somehow related to the field of interest)
I've recently started using RSS feeds. Does anyone have LW-related feeds they'd recommend? Or for that matter, anything they'd recommend following which doesn't have an RSS feed?
Here's my short list so far, in case anyone else is interested:
Less Wrong Discussion
Less Wrong Main (ie promoted)
Slate Star Codex
Center for the Study of Existential Risk
Future of Life Institute [they have a RSS button, but it appears to be broken. They just updated their webpage, so I'll subscribe once there's something to subscribe to.]
Global Priorities Project
80,000 Hours
SpaceX [an aerospace company, which Elon Musk refuses to take public until they've started a Mars colony]
These obviously have an xrisk focus, but feel free to share anything you think any Less-Wrongers might be interested in, even if it doesn't sound like I would be.
For anyone looking to start using RSS, I'd recommend using the Bamboo Feed Reader extension in FireFox, and deleting all the default feeds. I started out using Sage as a feed aggregator, but didn't like the sidebar style or the tiled reader.
Overcoming bias sidebar has a lot of interesting blogs.
You may like some of the sources mentioned in "List of Blogs" on LW wiki.
You should also subscribe to this subreddit.
I used to use Thunderbird Portable, but my flash drive died and I lost thousands of saved articles.
After Google Reader was discontinued, I switched to Feedly. This is my OPML. Note that I've included several Colombian media sources because that's where I live.
I have a foggy memory of someone here (I think it was gwern) linking to an article about simulation interface design. It built up examples based on a bird's eye view of a car steering down a road. I haven't been able to find it, anyone know a link to the article?
Bret Victor's "Up and Down the Ladder of Abstraction"?
Thanks a bunch that is the one!
Excepts from ''Explaining and inducing savant skills: privileged access to lower level, less-processed information'' by Allan Snyder,
Closely related: When the world becomes ‘too real’: a Bayesian explanation of autistic perception
This is the most terrifying comic SMBC has made yet How much of a point does Zach have, here? Can this be the shape of the future?
Luddites are not new.
That scenario doesn't seem terrifying to me, though it's pretty vague. He says there are job losses and revolution is impossible but so what? Realistically in this scenario people just vote to raise taxes on capital owners and give themselves a paycheck. Machine labor is apparently extremely capable and near-free in this scenario so owning even a small amount of capital makes you effectively rich in absolute but not relative terms. I guess he's assuming democracy breaks in a way that is pro-capital owners somewhere along the way but that isn't actually stated.
Probably not, because people who do not like new society can create a small closed society somewhere where population density is smaller and live off the land.