Most comments show exactly one downvote without a clear pattern why. I'd guess that a single person downvoted all these short comments. Can it be that this user doesn't know the custom of upvoting survey-takers?
ADDED 2014-10-25T16:20 UTC: The single downvotes disappeared.
ADDED 2014-10-26T21:10 UTC: The single downvotes reappeared again (at least for a lot of high scoring comments).
At first I thought this person would only downvote short comments that have little content beyond saying that the user took the survey, but I've since noticed that even "I took the survey" comments with very detailed critiques are getting the single downvotes. My guess is this person doesn't like the idea of some people getting 100% positive ratings through posting only survey comments, as survey comments would be the easiest way to attain that otherwise, or thinks that the amount of karma awarded by other users for these comments (even the detailed ones) is too much, and that karma should mainly be reserved for quality discussions.
Personally I think the amount of karma awarded for the short and simple survey comments should be based on the difficulty, time commitment, and benefit from having people take these surveys, but I think the amount of karma being awarded already is in line with that. Sure, there might be a few people lying by saying they took the survey when they in fact didn't, but I suspect that's pretty rare. I would like it though if there were some users who prioritized quality in deciding whether to upvote comments, so that it would be easier for people to quickly locate the most useful comments when they choose the "Sort by: Best" option.
It is interesting in kind of the same way that some people have quite a lot more up-votes than the others. The same threshold preventing downvotes prevents upvotes below.
I'm not sure I understand. I wasn't able to find explanations by typing "upvote" into the search either. Can you please clarify?
FWIW, this line of reasoning comes up pretty regularly (especially in response to that survey question), so if the surveyors fail to realize the associated difficulties, it's not through failure to have it pointed out. I suspect they realize it just fine.
For my own part, I just skip questions that I don't know how to answer and move on.
Incidentally, LW has a preferred local understanding of "supernatural," which derives from this post. That's not to say everyone here thinks it's a good definition -- I don't, for example -- but it's probably the best Schelling point to use when a shared understanding is important.
FWIW, this line of reasoning comes up pretty regularly (especially in response to that survey question), so if the surveyors fail to realize the associated difficulties, it's not through failure to have it pointed out. I suspect they realize it just fine.
Continuing to complain about it may still have an effect though. I personally think they should post the definition they're using for "supernatural" in the description for the question, maybe right below their current description.
Something that's bothered me a lot lately is a lack of good music that evokes the kind of emotion that spiritually-inspired music does, but whose subject matter is something I actually believe in.
I've had the exact same problem. Thank you for creating this post. :-)
For music that evokes a sublime atmosphere and lacks religious lyrics, I recommend the ambient electronic artist Stellardrone. You can download all the albums for free on his official website. http://stellardrone.bandcamp.com/ (There is one album called "Invent the Universe", but that could refer to a programmer creating a simulated universe. There are no lyrics IIRC and the song titles are quite innocuous, so you are relatively free to interpret the songs as you wish.)
Also, how would you feel about listening to sublime music based on intentionally fictitious deities? I'm thinking in particular about a song from a video game, Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn. The song in question is Child of Chaos, the theme song for Yune, the in-game goddess of chaos. (There are no lyrics, in case that's relevant.) I really love this song. Don't be fooled by its name. The song is actually very serene. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYdxRReGjaE
I love your song lyrics by the way. :-) I think it's fine that they draw attention to the bright side of technological development. For the record, I like futuristic dystopian music as well. There's a time and place for both, depending on my mood.
It's been a few years since your post was published. Do you now have audio versions of your song that you can link?
Took the survey. I almost missed it since I don't really read Main these days.
Are options 3/4 on the BSRI backwards? To me "occasionally" is rarer than "sometimes".
To me "occasionally" is rarer than "sometimes".
I think so too. I found that part odd.
Finished the survey! I'm curious to see what the results will be. Finding my digit ratio was interesting. I expected crazier questions.
When I first saw that there was going to be a digit ratio question, my first thought was that the survey was going to ask us to estimate our digit ratios, estimate our confidence in our estimates, and then measure the true ratios to see how far off we were. :P
I would like to participate in a deeper discussion of the idea of the Singularity, but don't know if that's welcome on LW.
You should be able to find a lot of info about the Singularity (and proposed ways to influence its outcome) in MIRI publications and LW posts. If you want to have further discussions about the Singularity you can comment below the relevant LW posts.
I didn't do the finger length questions; not sure what "the bottom crease" is, or maybe I don't have them. (Do you mean the crease at the base of the fingers, or one farther down on the hand?)
It's supposed to refer to the crease at the base of the fingers.
Why was I downvoted? Was that from you, jdgalt? Were you hoping to have the Singularity discussion here instead of below another post? If so that wasn't clear to me from your above comment, since you were asking about whether it was welcome on LW, and you seemed to be going off on a tangent (particularly with your latter two points). Also, you didn't seem like you possessed much of the background knowledge regarding intelligence explosion and friendly/unfriendly AI, so I thought you would find it helpful for me to point you toward some relevant sources that might answer your questions, not to mention provide more general information on the topic. Of course, if you're not interested in general information I'd be willing to address your specific questions.
Sorry, I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just want to understand what I did wrong so that I can better improve the quality of my comments, as well as clear up any misunderstandings.
Choosing 50% is availability bias. Just because the question is presented as a choice between MWI and everything else doesn't mean there are only two choices. There are zillions of choices; MWI is just the one mentioned on the screen in front of me.
I assumed you'd already factored in those other choices and still weren't leaning more for or against it relative to all the other possibilities combined. By "leaning one way or another", I meant along a hypothetical axis of "strongly believe" or "strongly disbelieve" for the given proposition. You have a good point about availability bias though. You can self-correct for that to some extent by decreasing your assigned probabilities, and we'd have to take availability bias into account while interpreting the probabilities given by other people.
I did the survey.
I felt that I had to leave blank some of the questions that ask for a probability number, because no answer that complies with the instructions would be right. For instance, I consider the "Many Worlds" hypothesis to be effectively meaningless, since while it does describe a set of plausible alleged facts, there is, as far as I know, no possible experiment that could falsify it. ("Supernatural" is also effectively meaningless, but for a different reason: vagueness. "Magic", to me, describes only situations where Clarke's Third Law applies. And so forth.)
I would like to participate in a deeper discussion of the idea of the Singularity, but don't know if that's welcome on LW. I want to attack the idea on several levels: (1) the definition of it, which may be too vague to be falsifiable; (2) the definition of intelligence -- I don't think we're talking about a mere chess-playing computer, but it's not clear to me whether Minsky's criteria are sufficient; (3) if those first two points are somehow nailed down, then I'm not at all sure that a machine intelligence is desirable, and certainly I'd hesitate to connect one to hardware with enough abilities that the revolution in "I, Robot" becomes possible; and (4) if such a change does happen, I would prefer, and I think most people would insist, that it happen relatively slowly to give everyone then alive time to cope with the change, thus making it not really a singularity in the mathematical sense.
(I do like the transhumanist notion that humans should feel free to modify our own hardware individually, but I don't see that as necessarily connected with a Singularity, and I don't use the jargon of transhumanism for the same reason I avoid the jargon of anarchism when talking politics -- it scares people needlessly.)
I left both MIRI questions blank because I don't know who or what MIRI is.
Re. The Great Stagnation: This theory asserts that we are in an economic stall, if you will, because of a lack of innovation, and is set against the assertion of a "Great Divergence" in which rising income inequality and globalization are to blame for the stall. I didn't answer because I consider both views to be baloney -- we are in an economic stall because of unnecessary and crony-driven overregulation, much of it done in the name of the misguided green and "social justice" movements.
I didn't do the finger length questions; not sure what "the bottom crease" is, or maybe I don't have them. (Do you mean the crease at the base of the fingers, or one farther down on the hand?)
Re. feminism, I answered based on what I believe the current use of the term is, which is not at all like the definition on Wikipedia. Wikipedia calls it more or less pro-equality and I support that, but the current usage is more like "social justice" and that whole concept is complete hooey.
I would like to participate in a deeper discussion of the idea of the Singularity, but don't know if that's welcome on LW.
You should be able to find a lot of info about the Singularity (and proposed ways to influence its outcome) in MIRI publications and LW posts. If you want to have further discussions about the Singularity you can comment below the relevant LW posts.
I didn't do the finger length questions; not sure what "the bottom crease" is, or maybe I don't have them. (Do you mean the crease at the base of the fingers, or one farther down on the hand?)
It's supposed to refer to the crease at the base of the fingers.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Gwern (79) and Vaniver (66) show significantly more upvotes than the next in line (gwern was initially also one of those who didn't get a downvote when the others did). If upvotes are handed out according to the rule and logically in order of occurrence the vots should roughly read n, n-1, n-2, ... but they don't. Quite some people upvote only their favorite LWers. A little bit of coalition politics or fan-boying on LW after all.
Thanks. That's interesting. I hadn't noticed that. They even score higher than some people who posted earlier, and with similar quality posts.
...At first I was going to say I think it would be more of an exponential decrease since most people take the survey in the first few days and I doubt many people diligently keep track of new comments, but then I remembered that the rate of new "I took the survey" comments themselves decrease exponentially, probably at a similar rate, which cancels out much of the effect. Oh well. This does make the situation less unfair.