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

Comment author: gjm 25 June 2017 03:10:03AM 2 points [-]

Well, the second picture is a 400-year-old painting, depicting Ezekiel's vision of the valley of dry bones. (So presumably the guy preaching is Ezekiel, obeying God's instructions to tell the bones to join together and form bodies.)

This still leaves it rather unclear what the two pictures mean as epistemic statuses, but I take the first to mean "here I am just explaining what the mathematics says, so there's not much scope for doubt" and the second to mean "here I am preaching religion, and you may if you wish dismiss me as a fanatic". This seems consistent with what he says at the start of the second part: "Part 1 was a careful explanation of a subject I know very well. Part 2 is a controversial rant about a subject I don’t."

Comment author: Jacobian 25 June 2017 06:37:01AM 2 points [-]

I've been hanging too long with the Ribbonfarm crowd where the default epistemic status is "clown on fire jumping out of a helicopter".

Part I is just math, part II is a prophecy of doom, and the pictures mean that I didn't feel like coming up with actual epistemic probabilities for both.

Comment author: Jacobian 24 June 2017 02:54:05PM 1 point [-]

I think this is a great idea, mostly as a motivator for people to come with classes.

For example, I have been thinking of doing a workshop on mental math or OKCupid for a while, but the logistics of doing it IRL for more than 2-3 people seem overwhelming. But this gave me the idea that I can plan to do it online, which actually has a lot of benefits, and I can advertise and see who signs up on LW.

Comment author: MaryCh 24 June 2017 01:57:40PM 1 point [-]

For people interested in learning Russian, I can't "teach" teach it, but I can help you practice it.

Comment author: Jacobian 24 June 2017 02:51:39PM 1 point [-]

Я тоже!

And also Hebrew. Looking for some to practice Spanish with.

Comment author: cousin_it 21 June 2017 07:29:37PM 3 points [-]

Nice read! For a more light-hearted take on this, see Shalizi's 2010 post The Neutral Model of Inquiry :-)

Comment author: Jacobian 21 June 2017 08:11:15PM 1 point [-]

That's a great link, and one quote, in particular, seems very relevant especially if lightly adapted:

It's true that none of these findings will last forever, but this constant overturning of old ideas by new discoveries is just part of what makes this such a dynamic time in the field of [psychology]. Many scholars will even tell you that their favorite part of being a [psychologist] is the frequency with which a new sacrifice over-turns everything they thought they knew about [deep human values] from a [5 point scale]!

Comment author: Jacobian 21 June 2017 06:55:24PM 7 points [-]

There's some gnashing of teeth in the comments about how hard it is to create positive social norms of collaboration, and any characteristic of the rationality community can be brought up to make it seem even harder. I think this is missing the overarching point of this post, which to me is: just do it.

Be the social norm you want to see in the world. Comment, compliment, help someone out.

This post is good not just for the advice it gives to others, but because it comes from a person who is mostly leading by example: deluks posts the super-useful bi-weekly rationality feed, is an organizer in our local meetup group, and is contributing to community projects.

Good social norms can seem hard in the abstract, but once you actually start living them they seem very natural.

[Link] Putanumonit: What statistical power means, and why I'm terrified about psychology

11 Jacobian 21 June 2017 06:29PM
Comment author: Jacobian 31 May 2017 04:15:52AM 8 points [-]

Data point to the contrary: I spent two years in a closed military unit with 44 guys and 5 girls (in Israel). Each of the girls went through at least a couple of in-unit boyfriends at the time, but that wasn't a major source of drama. It took quite a bit of suffering to forge the unit bonds (a 4-month combat boot camp to start our service), but by the end of it, people cared about "the unit" as a whole more than about personal drama. I certainly can't imagine that the "bonding" could have been any stronger without the girls there.

Comment author: Jacobian 31 May 2017 03:24:42PM 10 points [-]

And one final point of support for DA: while I was living in a closed barracks, with five girls, a huge workload, strict rules and significant barriers to exit, I read Ender's Game and thought "this is exactly like my life, and it's awesome".

I agree with some of the critics here that Duncan is overconfident in his ability to make this work. I also agree that there's a limit to how much you can learn from a work of fiction about space monkey superchildren. But a lot of the criticism here is even more overconfident, and it comes from people who never lived in DA-like situation in their lives so all the evidence they're basing their criticism on is fictional.

[Link] Strong men are socialist - how to use a study's own data to disprove it

6 Jacobian 31 May 2017 04:18AM
Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 27 May 2017 05:40:09AM *  7 points [-]

Anyway, for the above reasons, you might want to just say "this is a fraternity and if women want to start a rationalist sorority that can be a separate thing".

Possible advantage of this solution: I've noticed that male bonding gets a lot easier when a group goes from being "almost all guys" to "all guys". (I imagine it would get easier still if you are regularly doing testosterone-elevating things that require coordination with your group of guys, the way sports teams, armies, fraternities, and heavy metal bands do. I suspect men have a pack hunting instinct that gets activated in circumstances like these.)

Comment author: Jacobian 31 May 2017 04:15:52AM 8 points [-]

Data point to the contrary: I spent two years in a closed military unit with 44 guys and 5 girls (in Israel). Each of the girls went through at least a couple of in-unit boyfriends at the time, but that wasn't a major source of drama. It took quite a bit of suffering to forge the unit bonds (a 4-month combat boot camp to start our service), but by the end of it, people cared about "the unit" as a whole more than about personal drama. I certainly can't imagine that the "bonding" could have been any stronger without the girls there.

Comment author: Jacobian 30 May 2017 07:14:53PM 2 points [-]

We will have an internal economy whereby people can trade effort for money and money for time and so on and so forth, because heck yeah.

The last time I lived in an actual barracks, we did exactly that and it worked out great. In brief, all chores were assigned values in a currency and auctioned out to members. Members with less currency had priority in taking over tasks. If no one volunteered, the person with the least currency had to do it. Eventually, these points were used for some bartering of mutual services.

There's more detail and more bad jokes in the blog post I wrote about it.

View more: Next