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

Comment author: Oligopsony 20 January 2016 03:55:41AM 6 points [-]

If it's digitally embedded, even if the "base" module was bad at math in the same way we are, it would be trivial to cybernetically link it to a calculator program, just as us physical humans are cyborgs when we use physical calculators (albeit with a greater delay than a digital being would have to deal with.)

Comment author: eternal_neophyte 13 April 2015 03:37:00AM 3 points [-]

Should we conclude that it is for any particular reason?

Comment author: Oligopsony 13 April 2015 04:17:54AM 1 point [-]

Thiel enjoys the spotlight, he's his own boss and could spend all day rolling around in giant piles of money if he wanted to, he's said plenty of things publicly that are way more NRx-y than the monopoly thing and he's obviously fine.

Comment author: Oligopsony 01 April 2015 12:32:20PM *  9 points [-]

I give more to charity and use spaced repetition systems heavily.

Comment author: Oligopsony 07 March 2015 03:12:57AM 2 points [-]

If the demons understand harm and are very clever in figuring out what will lead to it, what happens when we ask them minimize harm, or maximize utility, or do the opposite of what it would want to do otherwise, or {rigidly specified version of something like this}?

Can we force demons to tell us (for instance) how they'd rank various policy packages in government, what personal choices they'd prefer I make, &c., so we can back-engineer what not to do? They're not infinitely clever, but how clever are they?

Comment author: ChristianKl 12 August 2014 11:26:17AM 1 point [-]

It is true that members of subcultures, such as goth girls, will have a far higher variance in perceived attractiveness. However, this is a fairly small percentage of the population.

Most of the example in the OKCupid article weren't Goth girls. One was a girl who put a flower into her hair. The next girl has a round face.

More generally there are guys who find a 1,80 meter tall girl more attractive than one that's 1,60 as nowadays models are usually very tall and set the ideal of beauty for some people. Other guys prefer smaller woman.

A lot of my own cultural conditioning doesn't come from watching TV but from dancing Salsa. As a result I think I will judge muscle tonus as more important than the average guy.

Different guys also care differently about factors such as weight or skin color.

Comment author: Oligopsony 12 August 2014 12:49:38PM 3 points [-]

The issue isn't whether looks are objective (clearly they aren't,) but whether judgments of looks are more correlated among the userbase than those of personality.

(Actually, the degree to which personality is correlated is probably the more interesting question here (granting that interestingness isn't particularly objective either.) Robin Hanson has pointed to some studies that suggest that "compatibility" isn't really a thing and some people are just easier to get along with than others - the study in question IIRC didn't take selection effects into account, but it remains an interesting hypothesis.)

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 15 July 2014 09:11:50PM 4 points [-]

What is Ankharism? Google does not find anyone but you using this word. I suspect you have fabricated an English word by transliterating from another language, but I cannot trace it. Somewhere you talk about Cambodia. Perhaps you mean Angkorism, a rare name for the ideology of the Khmer Rouge, after the Angkor Empire?

(There is also the Ankharite, named after the Egyptian Ankh, which may be displacing the term you use.)

Comment author: Oligopsony 25 July 2014 02:21:20AM 3 points [-]

It was a garbled version of Angkorism, sorry.

Comment author: gwern 03 June 2014 11:39:43PM 1 point [-]

Speaking of Big Five:

In general, I like to think of myself as open-minded. I support gay marriage, I am pro-choice, etc. And yet, doesn't everyone think they are open-minded?

If everyone thought they were completely open-minded, then how can questionnaires even work for measuring Openness? I mean, have you read or taken one of them? The O questions aren't remotely subtle.

Comment author: Oligopsony 04 June 2014 01:16:03AM -1 points [-]

If your point is that Openness is probably not a thing-in-the-world, I would be inclined to agree, actually.

Comment author: James_Miller 03 June 2014 08:02:49PM *  29 points [-]

In general, I like to think of myself as open-minded. I support gay marriage, I am pro-choice, etc.

Supporting gay marriage and being pro-choice should only count as evidence for your open-mindness if the people you associate with (your tribe) are strongly opposed to them.

Comment author: Oligopsony 03 June 2014 10:45:58PM 4 points [-]

Big Five Openness correlates with political liberalism, so cet par it would be weak Bayesian evidence for open-mindedness, even if it is not an example of it.

Comment author: Oligopsony 06 April 2014 01:18:26AM 2 points [-]

I am completely uninformed on the technical particulars here, so this is idle speculation. But it isn't totally implausible that ideological factors were at play here. By this I don't mean that there were arguments being deployed as soldiers - nothing political, as far as I'm aware, rides upon the two theories - but that worldviews may have primed scientists (acting in entirely good faith) to think of, and see as more reasonable, certain hypotheses. Dialectical materialism, for instance, tends to emphasize (or, by default, think in terms of) qualitative transformations that arise from historically specific tensions between different forces that eventually gets resolved (in said qualitative transformations.) If I understand you correctly that the difference between the two theories was that the American one isolated a process (1) explicable by the properties of a single substance and (2) acting at all times in Earth's history, while the Soviet one isolated a process (1) explicable in terms of the interaction of forces and (2) only active until it the conditions for it (stores of primordial methane) were resolved, then it's easy to construct a just-so story about how a scientist thinking in the categories privileged by diamat might find the second more intuitive than the first. Likewise, if, as a stereotypical reductive mechanist, you tend to think of individual objects rather than relationships, and eternal laws rather than historically specific ones, the former might be more intuitive than the latter. Further, it seems at least facially plausible that if you had a scientific community with Aristotelian or German idealist frameworks, you'd have different dominant theories still - even with researchers acting in good faith, with lots of data, and material incentives to produce a theory that derived correct predictions. (Such frameworks bear some similarities to, but are more vague and general than, Kuhnian paradigms.)

Of course, I could totally misunderstand the nature of the two theories at play, and I don't know anything about the geological communities of the two superpowers specifically, so the just-so stories here are probably complete bullshit. But your concerns are more general than the specific examples as well, so consider their purpose to be illustrative rather than explanatory.

Comment author: ChristianKl 11 February 2014 09:59:53PM 2 points [-]

What kind of selection effects do you mean? That not enough people would want to invest the time to answer 200 questions?

Comment author: Oligopsony 12 February 2014 12:56:29AM 3 points [-]

And that willingness to invest such time might correlate with certain factors.

View more: Next