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

Comment author: Michaelos 30 October 2014 07:13:47PM 0 points [-]

This article discusses a paper that seems interesting from the perspective of effective altruism and how peoples behavior changes based on where they think their money might be going:

http://www.vox.com/2014/10/30/7131345/overhead-free-donations-charity-fundraising-seed-matching-gneezy

If you want a link directly to the paper, that link is both in the article and reposted here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6209/632

Short summary: When considering donations, people in the study donated more when they know their donation is not going to overhead.

Comment author: Michaelos 29 October 2014 03:27:25PM *  6 points [-]

(Note: This is just a copy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States with minor edits: I'm speculating what it would look like if polymarriage laws are potentially 50 years behind same sex marriage laws.)

Polymarriage in the United States:

Polymarriage is legal in a majority of U.S. states and recognized by the United States federal government. Polymarriage is legal in 32 states, the District of Columbia, and ten Native American tribal jurisdictions. One more state, Missouri, only recognizes polymarriages established in other jurisdictions. Several hundred marriage licenses were issued to polygroups in Michigan and Arkansas between the time their bans were struck down by federal or state courts and when those rulings were stayed. Most Americans live in a jurisdiction where polygroups can legally marry.

The movement to obtain civil marriage rights and benefits for polygroups in the United States began in the 2020s, but became increasingly prominent in U.S. politics following the 2043 California Supreme Court decision in Yudkowsky v Baliene that declared that state's prohibition to be unconstitutional. During the 21st century, public support for polymarriage has grown considerably, and national polls conducted since 2061 show that a majority of Americans support legalizing it. On May 17, 2054, Massachusetts became the first U.S. state and the twelfth jurisdiction in the world to legalize polymarriage following the Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Alexander v. Department of Public Health six months earlier. On May 9, 2062, Malia Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to publicly declare support for the legalization of polymarriage. On November 6, 2062, Maine, Maryland, and Washington became the first and only states to legalize polymarriage through popular vote.

Comment author: Michaelos 29 October 2014 03:43:56PM 3 points [-]

As a side note, thank you snarles! This really was a neat exercise, because as an inexperienced writer who likes writing, this gives me the fictional idea of "United States v. Windsor, polymarriage version" where an older altruist polygroup is suing the United States federal government to legalize polymarriage because one of their members died and because of the lack of tax benefits, means would be losing hundreds of thousands of dollars that they could be giving to save the lives of poor people, so OF COURSE they're fighting it in court because lives are at stake and it doesn't matter to them that those lives are far.

Comment author: Michaelos 29 October 2014 03:27:25PM *  6 points [-]

(Note: This is just a copy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States with minor edits: I'm speculating what it would look like if polymarriage laws are potentially 50 years behind same sex marriage laws.)

Polymarriage in the United States:

Polymarriage is legal in a majority of U.S. states and recognized by the United States federal government. Polymarriage is legal in 32 states, the District of Columbia, and ten Native American tribal jurisdictions. One more state, Missouri, only recognizes polymarriages established in other jurisdictions. Several hundred marriage licenses were issued to polygroups in Michigan and Arkansas between the time their bans were struck down by federal or state courts and when those rulings were stayed. Most Americans live in a jurisdiction where polygroups can legally marry.

The movement to obtain civil marriage rights and benefits for polygroups in the United States began in the 2020s, but became increasingly prominent in U.S. politics following the 2043 California Supreme Court decision in Yudkowsky v Baliene that declared that state's prohibition to be unconstitutional. During the 21st century, public support for polymarriage has grown considerably, and national polls conducted since 2061 show that a majority of Americans support legalizing it. On May 17, 2054, Massachusetts became the first U.S. state and the twelfth jurisdiction in the world to legalize polymarriage following the Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Alexander v. Department of Public Health six months earlier. On May 9, 2062, Malia Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to publicly declare support for the legalization of polymarriage. On November 6, 2062, Maine, Maryland, and Washington became the first and only states to legalize polymarriage through popular vote.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 29 October 2014 01:39:22PM 5 points [-]

[Meta] Comments about this thread go here.

Comment author: Michaelos 29 October 2014 02:40:18PM 3 points [-]

Should posting articles based on obvious edits of existing articles (including notes indicating such) be encouraged, or discouraged? As an example, I had written up a rewrite of the Same-sex marriage in the United States article as 'Polymarriage in the United States', moved all dates forward 50 years, changed some of the case names... and then I realized I couldn't really tell if it was what snarles had in mind, or if he wanted more originality.

In response to Weird Alliances
Comment author: Michaelos 24 October 2014 01:38:00PM 5 points [-]

Let me attempt to incorporate what you mean with specifics to make sure I understand your point.

Say Less Wrong has an overly high proportion of fan fiction writers compared to some baseline. Fan fiction oriented people from other areas might come for the fan fiction and stay for other material, and swapping fan fiction will give people who are here... a community oriented leisure activity? (That doesn't sound like quite the right phrase but I'm having a hard time thinking of a better one)

As such, we should start and maintain Less Wrong fanfiction writing threads, rather than just sitting around waiting for another chapter of HPMOR.

That seems reasonable to me (As someone who writes a lot of not that great fanfiction and likes reading it from better authors.)

If I were to attempt to think of a potential downside, it would be something along the lines of a PUA person thinking "Well, if we can start Off-topic fanfiction discussions, then we can start off-topic PUA discussions." And then you seeing that and thinking "Ugh, a PUA discussion?"

Of course someone who liked PUA and disliked Fanfiction might have a switched reaction to those two things.

Comment author: Michaelos 22 October 2014 08:03:45PM 1 point [-]

Question: How would something like pencil and paper role playing games fit into this dynamic? On the one hand it's sort of like Lumifer's good point about "You don't run out of PvE content in games where players produce the content." Except in the case of games like Dungeons and Dragons, there's usually a person explicitly designated as a content producer and rule arbiter. (The Dungeon Master) that isn't really also a player in the conventional sense of the word.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 17 October 2014 02:42:18AM 4 points [-]

Believing this wasn't rational. I didn't take such basic steps as looking up the costs surrounding executions or life imprisonment.

Being ignorant of certain facts isn't being irrational.

Comment author: Michaelos 17 October 2014 12:48:44PM 3 points [-]

Thinking about this comment reminds me of an important point.

I do have a smartphone in my pocket and I can look up that information in seconds, quicker than I can type this post.

I don't recall exactly when I shifted that belief, but I think it was before I had a smartphone, which means that looking it up would probably take at least minutes, instead of seconds, which may be coloring me thinking now 'I should have just looked up some facts.'

Regardless of the status of beliefs about facts about the U.S. death penalty in particular, I agree there exist certain facts that are worth seconds looking into, that aren't worth minutes looking into (or any other appropriate combination of time increments)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Comment author: Michaelos 16 October 2014 08:08:40PM *  20 points [-]

False belief: That in the U.S. the death penalty was cheaper than life in prison.

Believing this wasn't rational. I didn't take such basic steps as looking up the costs surrounding executions or life imprisonment. Executions get much more appeals, trials and legal attention.

False belief: That in the U.S. deaths by firearm are generally homicides, not suicides.

Believing this also wasn't rational. I didn't take such basic steps as looking up available death statistics.

Actually, looking through things potentially on the list for me, a lot of them seem to have the following general form:

1: Something is asserted.

2: I think: 'Yeah, that sounds plausible.'

3: I don't bother to look up any data about it, I just move myself to the believe column.

4: Later, someone else reports data about it.

5: I'm surprised that my earlier beliefs were wrong.

I've since became more skeptical of believing things based on just assertions, (I can even recall a recent instance where an assertion popped up on TV which my wife believed, but which I was skeptical of and which upon looking it up we found data didn't support it and that they were massively overstating their case)

But I can definitely recall beliefs that I have had in the past that were fundamentally just assertion based and the followed the above pattern.

In response to Baysian conundrum
Comment author: Michaelos 13 October 2014 06:17:01PM 0 points [-]

Hmm. Let's consider this from the perspective of you, having just entered the simulation and considering keeping your oath. (This doesn't directly focus on the probabilities in your question, but I did find the subsequent thoughts fascinating enough to upvote your original question for inspiration)

You currently distinctly remember 1440 minutes of cold suck.

Based on your Oath, you're going to do do 1000 simulations. Each of these will have only 1 minute of cold suck, and 1439 minutes of identical tropical beach paradise.

There's probably going to need to be some strategic memory blocking, in between each session, of course. If you were to do spend this time only for novel super fun, you would have 1,440,000 minutes of novel super fun. Instead, you'll have 1,000 identical minutes of cold suck, and 1000 copies of 1,439 minutes of tropical fun. (if you make the tropical fun different each time, you might be able to reconstruct it to 1,439,000 minutes of novel super tropical fun)

Note: this will not provide any benefit to you, at this point. It would provide benefit to past you, but you're past that you.

Although, conveniently, you are in a simulation, so you can just probabilistically steal fun from the future, again. Sure, the minute where you're considering keeping or breaking your oath sucks, but you can set up 1000 simulations where you come by and say "Congratulations! You don't have to follow that oath after all. I already did it for you."

Of course, doing that means you are having 1000 more minutes of suck (where you are worried about the cost of keeping your oath) added to the future, in addition to the previous 1000 minutes of suck, where you are worried about the cold prior to upload, in addition to the 1440 minutes of cold suck you actually experienced.

If you were to continue doing this repeatedly that would add up to a large number of added minutes of suck. (How many minutes of suck would you add to your simulation if it ran forever?)

Or... you could just edit your memory to think "Yep, I fulfilled that Silly Oath." or just decide 'Actually, I guess I hit the one in a million chance I thought of.' not edit your memory, and never worry about it again.

Also, if you really believe it is correct to steal time from the future to give yourself more fun now... you don't even need a simulator or the ability to make binding verbal oaths. That technology exists right this second.

What's odd is that this basically makes the scenario seem like the transhumanist parallel to junk food. Except, in this case from your perspective you already ate the healthy food, and you're being given the opportunity to essentially go back in time and retroactively make it so that you ate junk food.

Which leads me to the realization "I could never take an oath strong enough to bind my future self to such a course of activity, so I'm almost certainly going to be sitting here for the next 1439 minutes freezing... Oh well."

In response to On Caring
Comment author: Michaelos 08 October 2014 08:43:21PM 1 point [-]

Attempting to process this post in light of being on my anti-anxiety medication is weird.

There are specific parts in your post where I thought 'If I was having these thoughts, it would probably be a sign I had not yet taken my pill today.' and I get the distinct feeling I would read this entirely differently when not on medication.

It's kind of like 'I notice I'm confused' except... In this case I know why I'm confused and I know that this particular kind of confusion is probably better than the alternative (Being a sleep deprived mess from constant worry) so I'm not going to pick at it. Which is not a feeling I usually get, which is why I said it was weird.

However, pretending to view this from the perspective of someone who can handle anxiety effectively, I would say this an excellent post and I upvoted it even though I can't really connect to it on a personal level.

View more: Next