There are many recommended reading threads on lesswrong. Some examples include: Math, Textbooks and Rationality.

I am looking to compile another such thread, this time aimed at "exceptional explainers" and their works. For example, I find Richard Feynman's QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter to be one such book.

Please list out other authors and books which you think are wonderfully written, in such a way that maximizes communication and explanation to laypeople in the given field. For example:

Physics: Richard Feynman - QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter.

Thank you,

Jeremy

Hi everyone,

I am graduating as a philosophy student shortly, and want to pursue computer science / programming/ something-of-that-sort.

I am currently taking some basic math (calculus) and physics (mechanics) courses in order to obtain pre-requesits, and to develop a basic framework. My problem is that I can grasp concepts and ideas, but when it comes to solving specific problems with actual numbers, I seem to shut down. Specifically, it takes me much more time (read "hours") to solve problems that ought to take 10 minutes. This is a particularly bad thing on tests and exams.

I believe that the difficulty I am having stems from so little exposure to symbolic reasoning in the past 5-6 years. I am looking for resources, techniques and advice to "turbocharge" (to use CFAR terminology) my ability to absorb and deeply comprehend technical material, so that solving problems becomes second nature.

Thank you so much for your time,

Jeremy

Hello,

I'm not sure if this should be posted here. If it should go in the open thread please let me know. I figured this could be an interesting conversation, since many people on lesswrong seem to be programmers.

I am currently researching the difference/ pros-cons of pursuing a computer science degree versus a software engineering degree. By "software engineering" I mean an accredited 4 year engineering program that allows a student to become a p.eng. My understanding is that computer science is more theoretical and mathematical and studies things like algorithms, data strictures, complexity and computability, while engineering is concerned with the practical design,development, testing, and production of software. 

I'm wondering what kind of jobs each degree can lead to, and if one is more optimal than the other in terms of:

1) short term salary

2) long term salary

3) promotability (job ladder climbing)

I'm sure there are more useful and relevent questions which I do not even know to ask. If there is anything you think might be a good question that others (or you) can answer, please let me know and I'll add it into the OP.

Thanks!

Hi everyone,

If this has been covered before, I apologize for the clutter and ask to be redirected to the appropriate article or post.

I am increasingly confused about normative theories. I've read both Eliezer's and Luke's meta ethics sequences as well as some of nyan's posts, but I felt even more confused afterwards. Further, I happen to be a philosophy student right now, and I'm worried that the ideas presented in my ethics classes are misguided and "conceptually corrupt" that is, the focus seems to be on defining terms over and over again, as opposed to taking account of real effects of moral ideas in the actual world. 

I am looking for two things: first, a guide as to which reductionist moral theories approximate what LW rationalists tend to think are correct. Second, how can I go about my ethics courses without going insane?

Sorry if this seems overly aggressive, I am perhaps wrongfully frustrated right now.

Jeremy

Hi everyone,

I am unsure if I am formatting this correctly or putting it in the appropriate location.

I think that having meetup notifications is a great idea. A new tab (I.e "main", "discussion" and "meetups") would  make it easier to find your own meetups, as well as create less clutter on the discussion page, leaving it for less administrative matters. What do you think about this?

Jeremy

One of the criteria moral philosophers use to asses the credibility and power of a moral theory is "applicability". That is, how easy is it for humans to implement a moral rule? For example, a rule exists like "donate 23 hours a day to charity" it would be impossible for humans to fulfill the goal.

This lead me to start thinking about whether we want to be able to to pursue "the moral theoretical truth" should such a truth exist, or if we want to find the most applicable and practical set of rules, such that reasonably intramentaly rational (human) agents could figure out what is best in any given situation.

I feel like this is sort of like a map-territory distinction in a loose way. For example, the best thing to do in situation X might be A. A may be so difficult or require so much sacrifice, that B might be preferable, even if the overall outcome is not as good. This reminds me of how Eliezer says that the map is not the territory, but you can't fold the territory and put it in your pocket. 

I'd love to be able to understand this issue a little better. If anyone has any thoughts, ideas or evidence, I'd appreciate hearing them.

Thanks,

Jeremy

I'm taking a class on heuristics and biases. I'm this class we have the option to read one of two "applied" books on the subject. The books are "The Panic Virus: A True Story of Medicine, Science, and Fear" by Seth Mnookin and "Sold on Language: How Advertisers Talk to You and What This Says About You" by Judith Sedivy and Greg Carlson.

I'd like to know if anyone has read one or both of these books, and how well or poorly they mesh with less wrong rationality.

Thanks,
Jeremy

Hi, I am relatively new to this site, I am not sure if this is the right place to be posting.

I am sure many of you are familiar with the following probability riddle:

"Sarah is walking along the street when she encounters a man. With the man is his son. He tells Sarah that he has only one more child at home. She is asked, 'what is the probability that my child is a girl?'"

Since Sarah does not know whether the boy is the elder or younger sibling, she needs to take four possible states into account. The father either had:

1) a boy, then a  girl

2) a girl, then a boy

3) two girls

4) two boys

Since 3 is impossible (Sarah knows there is at least one boy) that leaves three options. Two of those options imply a girl, the other implies a boy. Therefore, she can conclude that her probability estimate must be that it is 66.6% likely that there is a girl at home, and 33.3% likely that there is a boy.

Compare this to George's situation.

"George is walking along the street when he encounters a man. With the man is his son. He tells George that the boy with him is his oldest son, and that he has only one more child at home. He is asked, 'What is the probability that my child at home is a girl?'"

George's probability estimate is clear: either the man had a boy then a girl, or he had two boys. Therefore, it is 50% likely that the child at home is a girl.

My problem is this: I understand probability exists in the mind. The actual answer to the question is 100% one way or the other. Still, it seems like Sarah knows more about the situation, where George, by being given more information, knows less. His estimate is as good as knowing nothing other than the fact that the man has a child which could be equally likely to be a boy or a girl. 

If the reply is something like "Well, Sarah actually knows less so her estimate is less likely to be right" then that is something she could have figured out on her own, and then realized that assigning probability .5 is best anyways. That seems wrong.

I know I must be making a mistake somewhere: why does it seem like George learns less by knowing more?

Thank you for your help.