Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: TiffanyAching 18 January 2017 07:05:55PM 0 points [-]

Yes, that's the sort of idea I was getting at - though not anything so extreme.

Of course I don't really think Elo was saying that at all anyway, I'm not trying to strawman. I'd just like to see the idea clarified a bit.

(We use substitution ciphers as spoiler tags? Fancy!)

Comment author: Elo 19 January 2017 08:52:13PM 0 points [-]

I am not keen on a dystopian thought police. We have at the moment a lot more care given to children than to adults. For example children's hospitals VS adult's hospitals.

The idea is not drawn out to further conclusions as you have done, but I had to ask why we do the thing where we care about children's hospitals more than adult's hospitals, and generally decided that I don't like the way it is.

I believe common behaviour to like children more comes out of some measure of, "they are cute" and is similar to why we like baby animals more than fully grown ones. Simply because they have a babyness to them. If that is the case then it's a relatively unfounded belief and a bias that I would rather not carry.

Adults are (probably) productive members of society, we can place moralistic worth on that life as it stands in the relative concrete present, not the potential that you might be measuring when a child grows up. Anyone could wake up tomorrow and try to change the world, or wake up tomorrow and try to lie around on the beach. What causes people to change suddenly? Not part of this puzzle. I am confident that the snapshot gives a reasonably informative view of someone's worth. They are working hard in EA? That's their moral worth they present when they reveal with their actions what they care about.

What about old people? I don't know... Have not thought that far ahead. Was dealing with the cute-baby bias first. I suppose they are losing worth to society as they get less productive. And at the same time they have proven themselves worthy of being held/protected/cared for (or maybe they didn't).

Comment author: Grothor 16 January 2017 10:28:26PM *  1 point [-]

I made the thread here:

http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/ogw/welcome_to_less_wrong_11th_thread_january_2017/

I just copied all the text, added the same tags, changed the date and thread number (it's 11, but someone forgot to add tags on 10), and posted to discussion. If I somehow managed to miss that someone already made the post, then I assume you'll delete it or let me know and I'll delete it.

Comment author: Elo 18 January 2017 01:07:48AM 1 point [-]

I labelled them A and B for clarity and included links to the other one in each.

Comment author: elephantiskon 16 January 2017 09:17:17PM 2 points [-]

At what age do you all think people have the greatest moral status? I'm tempted to say that young children (maybe aged 2-10 or so) are more important than adolescents, adults, or infants, but don't have any particularly strong arguments for why that might be the case.

Comment author: Elo 18 January 2017 12:54:47AM 0 points [-]

this may be an odd counter position to the normal.

I think that adults are more morally valuable because they have proven their ability to not be murderous etc. Or possibly also to not be the next ghandi. Children could go either way.

Comment author: Flinter 17 January 2017 02:51:45AM 0 points [-]

Yes its related. But I come from a wildly different perspective in which you are unknowingly making assumptions that I don't subscribe too.

What does it mean to you, if instead of creating goals that might (likely) be desires that are eventually contradicted as such by our actions, we create goals that are inline with our actions?

So we change our desires to match our actions rather than our actions to match our desires.

The link was broken, and I don't mind them, I expected it, and I think they are useful, I certainly skim them and re-read them if I don't feel I got the point.

Comment author: Elo 17 January 2017 02:59:42AM 0 points [-]

wildly different perspective in which you are unknowingly making assumptions

Most of my assumptions are hopefully presented as guesses. I don't really know, feel free to correct me.

What does it mean to you

Which "it" are you referring to now? Can you be more specific?

if instead of creating goals that might (likely) be desires that are eventually contradicted as such by our actions, we create goals that are inline with our actions?

I said in this post

Revealed preferences work in two directions. On the one hand you can discover your revealed preferences and let that inform your future judgements and future actions. On the other hand you can make your revealed preferences show that they line up with your goal.

take stock of what you are doing and align it with your desired goals.

The link was broken

Does this work: http://mindingourway.com/guilt/

Comment author: Flinter 17 January 2017 02:36:00AM 0 points [-]

You are underestimating the time and effort I have put into all this. Years. And I really appreciate it but you see its such a difficult concept and so deep to traverse that it needs to be presented in a certain way. And its not rational for you to make the assumption that your help would taint the presentation (especially cause it would)

Nash was a brilliant gift to humanity.

You have no idea what he did, no clue. You don't know anything about him. No one does. He spent his whole life on this problem of Ideal Money and 20 years explaining the solution.

Why will no one read and address his works?

Cheers!

Comment author: Elo 17 January 2017 02:55:50AM 0 points [-]

Why will no one read and address his works?

Part of the problem you are currently encountering is in your presentation of the idea. I am willing to accept the premise that it is important, but I am as yet unconvinced that it's more important than the 1200 hours of other work on my todo list.

You are underestimating the time and effort I have put into all this.

Yes I have no idea what you are talking about; I can't know right now. Do tell!

its such a difficult concept

That may be true. My offer still stands. If you think I am managing to communicate with you now; then maybe it's worth me managing to help you communicate with other people around here. You probably already know this but humans are not automatically strategic

And its not rational for you to make the assumption that your help would <not> taint the presentation

My offer still stands. Willing to try. Not willing to guarantee success.

You don't know anything about him. No one does.

You will find it difficult making friends with your exciting ideas if you present them from a perspective of that attitude.

Why will no one read and address his works?

A friend recently offered logicnation to us, and asked the same question. "please read these hundreds of pages before talking to me" it's a lot to ask. Try asking for something smaller (or breaking it down into smaller chunks) if you want people to engage.

Comment author: Flinter 17 January 2017 01:57:26AM *  0 points [-]

John Nash won a nobel prize for game theory. No one ignored him. He's a great mathematician and economist, they made a movie about his life. The whole community mourned when he died in a car accident. No one is ignoring him.

He spoke for 20 years and wrote for that time on the subject Ideal Money that he had been developing his whole life. He toured country to country proposing his idea. Have you head of it, because you just stated you aren't ignoring him and neither is the community. Do you understand his argument/proposal and what are you doing about the significance of it?

edit: (also btw what he was given prizes for was just components and sub-solutions contained within his bigger proposal Ideal Money)

Battles over definitions are interesting, and I would encourage you to become familiar with 37 ways that words can be wrong before challenging definitions.

There is nothing to battle over. I will be using all commonly accepted definitions. But I am particularly interested in whether or not we share the same definition for "ideal", which is not a challenge or battle.

This is a very bold claim, and would require very confident evidence to back it up. I am certainly not saying no, but the burden of proof is on you to explain why it matters so greatly to be world changing. Please feel free to put together a thesis which describes that.

I have such a thesis' but why would you ask for mine and not attend to Nash's in order to judge the truth of it? That is irrational.

Again a bold claim, no one is censoring any body of work and if we did it would still be on Wikipedia, or free to talk about it elsewhere (as with the general avoidance of politics)

Yes my thread on it was removed and the mod explained they favor Hayek over Nash which is a clear indication of such bias. If they thought Nash's proposal had merit and was rational then we would be having dialogue in the main forum like it belongs or AT LEAST in the discussion section.

Thanks, cheers!

Comment author: Elo 17 January 2017 02:49:12AM 0 points [-]

John Nash... Do you understand his argument/proposal and what are you doing about the significance of it?

I haven't had a chance yet, but it's now on my list. I am digging into Keynesian Economics and Revealed preference theory at the moment.

I will be using all commonly accepted definitions

I hope so, but just to be clear it's best to state your premises. Especially when presenting your information.

why would you ask for mine and not attend to Nash's

Nash was a mathematician, I would love to see the easiest explanation to understand that you have.

main forum

Main is currently closed. As a matter of retirement, it's mostly inactive. And is reserved for posts that both excel in ideas and clear presentation of those ideas to a wide audience. If I were to drop a link to the homepage of wikipedia and suggest all folks need to read it, that would be of little help to anyone, and would not make it to main.

Comment author: Flinter 17 January 2017 02:07:11AM *  2 points [-]

K I skimmed that and I think I can speak to us in a re-solving manner. System 1 yes, that is easy to see relates. But system 2, does this involve projection of the future? I don't think it is necessary, even for complex tasks. I think projection gets in the way of efficiency of the action.

This speaks to goals as well. So I might not prove goals are wrong and bad, but I can suggest that there can be friction such as "Oh no, I'm not achieving my goals" and this friction is "bad".

Now of course if you are thinking of achievement X (which is a clear projection of a future event btw), then not setting a goal and missing X might seem "bad".

But how is it, one has claimed they want X, but then they do something else, and somehow still state they wanted X?

I am suggesting wanting X is a fallacy. There is no substance to it, and so setting goals for these arbitrary ends (x )creates a friction with what actually happens.

But I am also suggesting that people that are free from such friction live incredibly efficient existences.

Comment author: Elo 17 January 2017 02:40:01AM 0 points [-]

I can speak to us in a re-solving manner.

I am not sure what you mean by this.

system 2, does this involve projection of the future?

It's generally taken that both s1 and s2 are good systems and better at some things than others. For example S1 is great at catching baseballs, or fast movements, S2 might be better at working out how to save money (even if this involves teaching S1 how good it feels to "have already saved money" when deciding in S1 whether to spend money right now).

This speaks to goals as well.

I am not sure what "this" you are referring to.

"Oh no, I'm not achieving my goals" and this friction is "bad".

LW culture is big; you might like to also read some of Nate Soares' guilt series at minding our way , to make sense of those guilty feelings around should be doing X. I don't want to keep dumping links on you to read, I am sorry to do that. It's really good and makes a lot of sense.

not setting a goal and missing X might seem "bad".

Goal setting - in the sense of setting personal goals is a completely objective experience. There is no subjectivity to "I want icecream now and if I don't get it that will be bad". That is that it is still part of the very human battle to do what you want to do.

one has claimed they want X, but then they do something else, and somehow still state they wanted X?

You might appreciate revealed preferences, from Paul Samuelson - an offshoot of Keynesian economics, I started writing about it here but I would like to rewrite it soon.

wanting X is a fallacy

I think you might be looking for a different word in the place of "fallacy" but that's okay.

There is no substance to it

If you mean to say there is no subjectivity to it, then yes, there is only personal objective opinion on whether that goal-thing is relevant or valid to you.

creates a friction with what actually happens.

I am excited by this idea because it relates to my recent post about the time that you have or choosing to align your actions and thereby your "revealed preferences" to your stated goals in life. I think you are hitting on the same idea. But these things are notoriously hard to communicate.

Comment author: Flinter 17 January 2017 02:12:52AM *  0 points [-]

Thank you. Yes I expected it did. But these days tapping out in martial arts implies win/loss. I am happy to see the definition here doesn't imply that, but at the same time there seems to be a need to imply "im not saying you won but I am tapping", which is still different than I teach.

My students look for equilibrium positions and so there is never a purposeful ends. They don't seek ends through conflict they seek re-solution through inquiry.

I have read many posts from here and look forward to reading more. But I will be sad if I can't engage because we all lose a lot of value, and on my first real post I was warned I would be banned if I continue and I'm not sure what I am to avoid (or why we can't have a thread/discussion about 20 years of Nash's works that no one is talking about).

Comment author: Elo 17 January 2017 02:28:36AM 0 points [-]

If you would like to make a draft in a google doc and PM me a link I would be happy to help you turn it into a post that won't get deleted so quickly.

As an estimate; consider how long it might take you to write the post and aim for more than two hours of thinking, sitting and writing. Preferably up to 5 hours.

It's funny some of my great posts took 20mins to write, and some took more than 100 hours.

Nash was a brilliant gift to humanity. Some of the ways you presented it has made it hard for people to be willing to engage. Happy to help with that.

Comment author: Flinter 17 January 2017 01:47:43AM *  0 points [-]

Perfect thanks. I teach Ju Jitsu (which people ascribe to an integral part of mma) with no tapouts: https://steemit.com/mma/@jokerpravis/extending-bjj-with-no-tap-outs-the-end-of-conflict-and-competition

It is similar to what you linked, that its not that I won and Tiff conceited defeat, but there that is a risk of exhaustion or injury or some certain discomfort they wish to avoid.

I think though they weren't at all speaking to me or my argument or my situation and they tired themselves out and also were to scared to actually address the topic of Nash's Ideal Money.

This happens in Ju Jitus too even with "no tap outs" when the person is not conserving energy properly (and therefore not utilizing it efficiently).

Comment author: Elo 17 January 2017 02:03:22AM 0 points [-]

I am confident that "tapping out" on the lesswrong sense originated in martial arts. Lesswrong is made up of many memes like this one, it's a culture more than it is just a website. It's hard to jump right in and be engaged on the level of people who juggle lots of these heuristics of behaviour all the time and have been doing so for years. Welcome! I am sure you are more than capable of catching up on our culture! You will fit right in! Lots of our culture is on the wiki and lots is in the sequences, please look around and see what you can see!

Comment author: Flinter 17 January 2017 01:43:40AM 0 points [-]

Nope you spoke perfect, and a great introduction too (cheers). But there is an argument that goals are wholly irrational. So how I would make a counterpoint to you would be to suggest that you don't have to think and plan to catch a baseball that someone unexpectedly but lightly tossed to you.

So there is still function without such pre planning, and I am suggesting that type of function I describe is rational and pre planning (aka goals) is not, because it presupposes we can control our own fate (by psychologically projecting a future) which is unfounded.

Comment author: Elo 17 January 2017 01:55:50AM 1 point [-]

goals are wholly irrational.

I am not sure what you mean by this.

catch a baseball that someone unexpectedly but lightly tossed to you.

This sounds like a System 1 task (from Daniel Kanemann's Thinking, fast and slow) Do you have a different example?

I have written a lot about goals from time to time; you might like to read some of; list of common human goals, should you share your goals. and some of my current series which can be found here

presupposes we can control our own fate (by psychologically projecting a future)

Certainly not. We can't project the future but we can make a goal and then work out how to use what is within our control to steer closer to the goal. For example: If I want icecream, I can sit on a couch all day wanting icecream and it will never come, or I can decide to get icecream to fulfil my wanting. So I can go to the shops and buy icecream. Thereby using goal-seeking to achieve what I want.

View more: Next