Comment author: hyporational 13 November 2013 03:15:17AM 2 points [-]

It's not clear to me that donating to AMF is a reliable sign of their increased rationality. How do you know you're not simply guilt tripping them?

Comment author: Dan_Weinand 13 November 2013 09:14:35PM 0 points [-]

Apologies, I should have been clearer in using donations to the AMF as an analogy to persuading people to be more rational and not a direct way to persuade people to be more rational. I don't claim that these people are more rational simply because they donate to the AMF.

If we are really trying to persuade people, however, guilt tripping should be considered as an option. Logical arguments will only change the behavior of a very small segment of society while even self-professed rationalists can be persuaded with good emotional appeals.

Comment author: Lumifer 13 November 2013 04:05:54AM 2 points [-]

I've found that engaging people about their rationality habits is frequently something that needs to be done in a manner which is significantly more confrontational than what is considered polite conversation. Being told that how you think is flawed at a fundamental level is very difficult to deal with, and people will be inclined to not deal with it. ... So if you want to convince someone to be more rational, bug them about it.

Let me make just a small change...

I've found that engaging people about their belief in Jesus is frequently something that needs to be done in a manner which is significantly more confrontational than what is considered polite conversation. Being told that how you live is flawed at a fundamental level is very difficult to deal with, and people will be inclined to not deal with it. ... So if you want to convince someone to love Jesus, bug them about it.

Do you have any reason to believe that people will react to the first better than to the second?

Comment author: Dan_Weinand 13 November 2013 09:08:10PM 4 points [-]

While there are many people who are annoyed by Christian Evangelicals, I feel that it is difficult to argue against their effectiveness. They exist because they are willing to talk to people again and again about their beliefs until those people convert.

Do you have any reason to believe that Christian Evangelicals are ineffective at persuading people? Keep in mind that a 5% conversion rate is doing a pretty damn good job when it comes to changing people's minds.

Comment author: niceguyanon 12 November 2013 07:02:03PM *  16 points [-]

How can we spread rationality and good decision making to people who aren't inclined to it?

I recently chatted up a friendly doorman who I normally exchange brief pleasantries with. He told me that he was from a particularly rough part of town and that he works three jobs to support his family. He also told me not to worry because he has a new business that makes a lot of money, although had to borrow gas money to get to work that day. He said that he was part of a "travel club". I immediately felt bad because I had a gut feeling he was talking about some multi-level marketing scheme. I asked him if it was and he confirmed it was, but disagreed that it was a "scheme". He told me that he is trying to recruit his family, and that the business model encourages recruiting among family and friends. Skip 45 minutes of him selling it to me, I left him with a warning to be cautious because these things can be fly by night operations and that most people need to lose for a very few to win, and that he can win only if he is part of the very best promoters/sellers. I said that on purpose to gauge whether he is a true believer or a wolf in sheep's clothing but his response was a sort of genuine disbelief that his business was zero sum.

I walked away feeling sad. This guy is really trying to better his life for him and his family and what does life give him? A shitty MLM scheme that will likely harm him and he doesn't know any better. I have this special hatred for MLM schemes, right up there with religion. The deviousness lies in the difficulty to see MLM schemes for what they are prima facie when it is obfuscated with legitimate business practices, as is what most of these companies do.

I should talk to him again and maybe get him to change his mind. Back to my original question; the people who I want to help can not afford or want to attend things like a CFAR work shop, how do you help these people? And introducing people to LW is tricky. LW isn't really accessible, it doesn't find you, you find it.

Comment author: Dan_Weinand 13 November 2013 02:35:00AM -1 points [-]

The following advice is anecdotal and is a very clear example of "other optimizing". So don't take it with a grain of salt, take it with at least a table spoon.

I've found that engaging people about their rationality habits is frequently something that needs to be done in a manner which is significantly more confrontational than what is considered polite conversation. Being told that how you think is flawed at a fundamental level is very difficult to deal with, and people will be inclined to not deal with it. So you need to talk to people about the real world consequences of their biases and very specifically describe how acting in a less biased manner will improve their life and the lives of those around them.

Anecdotally I've found this to be true in convincing people to donate money to the AMF. My friends will be happy to agree that they should do so, but unless prodded repeatedly and pointedly they will not actually take the next step of donating. I accept that my friends are not a good sample to generalize from (my social circle tends to include those who are already slightly more rational than the average bear to begin with). So if you want to convince someone to be more rational, bug them about it. Once a week for two months. Specificity is key here, talk about real life examples where their biases are causing problems. The more concrete the better since it allows them to have a clear picture of what improvement will look like.

Comment author: Dan_Weinand 08 September 2013 08:09:38PM 3 points [-]

The issue of "watering down" one's GPA by taking more classes is already being significantly addressed by colleges and high schools.

Most top colleges examine unweighted GPAs rather than weighted ones. Unweighted GPAs cannot be watered down by non honors classes, and have better predictive validity for college grades than weighted GPAs. One might be inclined to think that this provides incentives for taking easy classes, but the top schools are simply not going to take you seriously if you adopt this strategy (speaking from personal experience at a top liberal arts college and having seen the data on the average number of AP classes taken).

On the high school end, many high schools (including my own former school) have switched away from a weighted average system for class rank. Instead, they use a system where one's GPA for class rank purposes = 36 * (unweighted GPA) + .5 (number of honors classes taken) + 1(number of AP classes taken). The additive system prevents the possibility of having one's GPA watered down. Some high schools go further by adding additional points for taking extra classes beyond the number required for graduation, further encouraging the taking of additional classes regardless of their honor/AP status.

In response to How I Am Productive
Comment author: Dan_Weinand 30 August 2013 04:36:31PM 1 point [-]

After doing a little research on the Pomodoro technique, I couldn't really find any studies on their effectiveness. The anecdotal evidence is enticing (and preliminary trials of my own have been positive), but has anyone seen good research done on it or similar productivity methods?

Comment author: rocurley 22 September 2012 04:28:56AM 0 points [-]

Diversification then decreases payoff for such cheating; sufficient diversification can make it economically non viable for selfish parties to fake the signals.

I find this nonobvious; could you elaborate?

Comment author: Dan_Weinand 30 August 2013 04:24:05PM 0 points [-]

I agree with the arguments against diversification (mainly due to its effect on lowering the incentive for becoming more efficient), but here's a concrete instance of how diversification could make cheating nonviable.

Example: Cheating to fake the signals costs 5,000$ (in other words, 5,000$ to make it look like you're the best charity). There are 10,000$ of efficient altruism funds that will be directed to the most efficient charity. By faking signals, you net 5,000$.

Now if diversification is used, let's say at most 1/4 of the efficient altruism funds will be directed to a given charity (maybe evenly splitting the funds among the top 4 charities). Faking the signals now nets -2,500$. Thus, diversification would lower the incentive to cheat by reducing the expected payoff.

View more: Prev