Vaniver comments on Rationality: Appreciating Cognitive Algorithms - LessWrong

37 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 06 October 2012 09:59AM

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

Comments (134)

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

Comment author: Wei_Dai 07 October 2012 05:03:30AM 6 points [-]

When Anna tells me, "I'm worried that you don't seem very curious about this," there's this state of mind called 'curiosity' that we both agree is important - as a matter of rational process, on a meta-level above the particular issue at hand - and I know as a matter of process that when a respected fellow rationalist tells me that I need to become curious, I should pause and check my curiosity levels and try to increase them.

Having someone who would occasionally point out deficiencies in one's rational processes sounds awesome. Do you think it is possible for LWers to perform this service for each other on this forum, or does it require much closer interactions and/or intimate knowledge?

(It seems like the real meat of this post is in the second half, but a lot of people, including myself, got distracted by problems in the first half.)

Comment author: Vaniver 07 October 2012 11:28:54PM 6 points [-]

Do you think it is possible for LWers to perform this service for each other on this forum, or does it require much closer interactions and/or intimate knowledge?

So, one of the easiest ways to detect curiosity is to notice things like posture and demeanor- which seems difficult to do over a text-based channel! I have noticed that online comments telling me "I think you're suffering from bias X" have seemed more like arguments than observations, whereas similar statements in person can be more like observations than arguments.