I'm pretty sure it's 2 (same as Vaniver, gwillen, and Alicorn). Was that what popped out at you?
It didn't take me less than 10 seconds to come up with this (I'd be surprised if it was less than 20 or more than 40 to find it and check, but I didn't check the clock). I tried to figure out the pattern without priming by looking at the possible answers, so there wasn't even really a chance to have the right answer pop out in this fashion.
ETA: I have taken Raven's Matrices before, so I was ready.
I got 6 as the answer, basing it on 1. presence of inner circle 2. outer box apparently following a pattern.
But there's a high chance i'm privileging my observations.
It would take me too long to properly elaborate on that, but basically it looks to me strongly like things like this would have a much bigger impact on our behavior than any amount of verbal-level thinking about what would be the most reasonable thing to do.
That seems to me like an argument from lack of imagination. The fact that reinforcement learning is the best among those you can easily imagine doesn't mean that it's the best overall.
If reinforcement learning would be the prime way we learn, understanding Anki cards before you memorize them shouldn't be as important as it is. Having a card fail after 5 repetitions because the initial understanding wasn't deep enough to build a foundation suggests that learning is about more than just reinforcing. Creating the initial strong understanding of a card doesn't feel to me like it's about reinforcement learning.
On a theoretical level reinforcement learning is basically behaviorism. It's not like behaviorism never works but modern cognitive behavior therapy moved beyond it. CBT does things that aren't well explainable with behaviorism.
You can get rid of a phobia via reinforcement learning but it takes a lot of time and gradual change. There are various published principles that are simply faster.
Pigeons manage to beat humans at a monty hall problem: http://www.livescience.com/6150-pigeons-beat-humans-solving-monty-hall-problem.html The pigeons engage the problem with reinforcement learning which is in this case a good strategy. Human on the other hand don't use that strategy and get different outcomes. To me that suggest a lot of high level human thought is not about reinforcement learning.
Given our bigger brains we should be able to beat the pigeons or at least be as good as them when we would use the same strategy.
Uhm. Is there any known experiment that has been tried which has failed with respect to RL?
In the sense, has there been an experiment where one says RL should predict X, but X did not happen. The lack of such a conclusive experiment would be somewhat evidence in favor of RL. Provided of course that the lack of such an experiment is not due to other reasons such as inability to design a proper test (indicating a lack of understanding of the properties of RL) or lack of the experiment happening to due to real world impracticalities (not enough attention having been cast on RL, not enough funding for a proper experiment to have been conducted etc.)
Because nobody linked it: Raw Thought by Aaron Swartz: "HOWTO: Be more productive" http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/productivity
There is also a work by Julien Smith entitled "The Flinch". It was recommended by Swartz, and I read it to find that it is in fact pretty good.
Just an update - Both "Bangalore,India" parties have decided to unite under one roof. 9pm at Infinitea in Indiranagar.
Oh and congrats on the eulogy Oliver. :)
Your inner simulator is probably more accurate than your explicit models in domains where you have a rich experience base, such as social phenomena, and day-to-day physical phenomena.
Not true. At least not likely. If it were so, then most people would pick up soft skills in a rather automatic fashion without the need for too much conscious effort (actually, any conscious effort, since if the inner simulator is more accurate, your intuitions should lead you on the correct/correct-ish path. Ceterus Paribus, this should hold true for the majority of people (i would expect around more than 90%)
Also, I have a more general comment. A large part of the strategy advocatde here seems (to me) to be divided into rough categories: Keep trying stuff and keep reading stuff. You seem to indicate that learning hard facts should be discarded when you find them to be wrong, whereas learning soft skills involves some amount of reading "wrong ideas/facts/information". I get the feeling that you're keeping a double standard here. In the sense, that the timeline for learning a hard fact seems to be almost instantaneous while soft skills seem to be a little more long term (at least that's the sense I got from reading it, as if it was implied). To further illustrate this point, consider the following thought experiment:
You read in a book that gravity doesn't work on cell phones. You drop your phone and find it falls. You've learnt that gravity does in fact work.
You read that flattering people doesn't help. You avoid flattering people and then suddenly notice that your competitors who flattered their bosses/colleagues/friends have advanced their careers/social position.
See, what I'm getting at?
On an off-note, Adams has also suggested exercise and diet as simple and yet important components of beating Akrasia. For this specific goal, I think they are more important than affirmations.
For overall performance though, I'm not so sure.
Can you elaborate?
Stephen King in his book "On Writing - A memoir of the craft" states that he prefers it when people avoid the passive form of writing.
He also further goes on to "speculate" that people like the passive voice for the same reason that people like to be passive lovers.
Write like a freight train.
What does that mean?
Develop an allergy to passive sentences.
That's bovine feces. Each sentence demands its own way of being written.
Start and end every paragraph with the most important sentences. They’re the only parts skimmers will read.
a) Each subject will demand its own structure, and the most important idea can very well be located anywhere in the paragraph. b) Good writing aims to engage, to absorb, to become unskimmable. If you are being skimmed, you're not doing it right.
Write quickly.
Not necessarily. Each writer must find the rhythm that works for h**self.
I trained myself to believe the first draft doesn't matter.
Some writers write a draft of the entire story. Moi, I draft sentence by sentence. Again, each writer must find the style that fits h** goals and sensibilities.
Changing the formatting can help you freshly focus. Try printing your pieces or dramatically changing the font size.
This is actually good advice.
Quick readers can get bored. [...] Make them work, but not too hard.
As long as what you write makes sense, I don't care if you force me to unravel a perfectly grammatical yet labyrinthic sentence that spans sixteen pages. In fact, I may enjoy it more because of that.
When in doubt, ask: What would Ernest Hemingway do?
Insert your preferred writer in that sentence. Not everyone must like the books you like.
That's bovine feces. Each sentence demands its own way of being written.
Not according to Stephen King
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
It appears to me that ChristianKI just listed four. Did you have something specific in mind?
Uhm, I kind of felt the pigeon experiment was a little misleading.
Yes, the pigeons did a great job of switching doors and learning through LR.
Human RL however (seems to me) takes place in a more subtle manner. While the pigeons seemed to focus on a more object level prouctivity, human RL would seem to take up a more complicated route.
But even that's kind of besides the point.
In the article that Kaj had posted above, with the Amy Sutherland trying the LRS on her husband, it was an interesting point to note that the RL was happening at a rather unconscious level. In the monty hall problem solving type of cognition, the brain is working at a much more conscious active level.
So it seems more than likely to me that while LR works in humans, it gets easily over-ridden if you will by conscious deliberate action.
One other point is also worth noting in my opinion.
Human brains come with a lot more baggage than pigeon brains. Therefore, it is more than likely than humans have learnt not to switch through years of re-enforced learning. It makes it much harder to unlearn the same thing in a smaller period of time. The pigeons having lesser cognitive load may have a lot less to unlearn and may have made it easier for them to learn the switching pattern.