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

Comment author: Vulture 02 September 2014 04:26:30PM 12 points [-]

People who are often misunderstood: 6% geniuses; 94% garden-variety nonsense-spouters

-- David Malki !

Comment author: Omegaile 04 September 2014 02:10:30AM 12 points [-]

I know that. People are so lame. Not me though. I am one of the genius ones.

Comment author: Vaniver 19 January 2014 06:17:28AM *  3 points [-]

I know, that's why I mentioned it- I decided not to quote it to leave it as a surprise for people who decided to then go check. But I had missed that someone else posted it.

Comment author: Omegaile 20 January 2014 03:17:03AM 5 points [-]

You know, it would be interesting if Yvain had put something else there just to see how many people would try to cheat.

In response to 2013 Survey Results
Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 19 January 2014 10:37:09AM 8 points [-]

Some thoughts on the correlations:

At first I saw that IQ seems to correlate with less children (a not uncommon observation):

Number of children/ACT score: -.279 (269)

Number of children/SAT score (2400): -.223 (345)

But then I noticed that number of children obviously correlate with age and age with IQ (somewhat):

Number of children/age: .507 (1607)

SAT score out of 1600/age: -.194 (422)

So it may be that older people just have lower IQ (Flynn effect).


Something to think about:

Time on Less Wrong/IQ: -.164 (492)

This can be read as smarter people stay shorter on LW. It seems to imply that over time LW will degrade in smarts. But it could also just mean that smarter people just turn over faster (thus also entering faster).

On the other hand most human endeavors tend toward the mean over time.


Time on Less Wrong/age: -.108 (1491)

Older people (like me ahem) either take longer to notice LW or the community is spreading from younger to older people slowly.


This made me laugh:

Number of current partners/karma score: .137 (1470)

Guess who does the voting :-)

Comment author: Omegaile 19 January 2014 06:31:47PM 3 points [-]

Time on Less Wrong/IQ: -.164 (492)

Wait, this means that reading less wrong makes you dumber!

Hmmm, there was something about correlation and causation... but I don't remember it well. I must be spending too much time on less wrong.

Comment author: Omegaile 08 December 2013 04:25:36AM 9 points [-]

I felt so rebel giving passwords right above Google's message:

Never submit passwords through Google Forms

Comment author: RichardKennaway 02 November 2013 03:34:11PM *  5 points [-]

Intuition pump: my theory says that the sequence of coinflips HHHTHHTHTT-THHTHHHTT-TTHTHTTTTH-HTTTHTHHHTT, which I just observed, should happen about once every 7 million years.

Intuition pump: if I choose an interesting sequence of coinflips in advance, I will never see it actually happen if the coinflips are honest. There aren't enough interesting sequences of 40 coinflips to ever see one. Most of them look completely random, and in terms of Kolmogorov complexity, most of them are: they cannot be described much more compactly than by just writing them out.

Now, we have a good enough understanding of the dynamics of tossed coins to be fairly confident that only deliberate artifice would produce a sequence of, say, 40 consecutive heads. We do not have such an understanding of the sort of things that appear in the news as "should only happen every N years".

Feynman on the same theme.

Comment author: Omegaile 03 November 2013 09:07:57PM 4 points [-]

There aren't enough interesting sequences of 40 coinflips to ever see one.

Every sequence of 40 coin flips is interesting. Proof: Make a 1 to 1 relation on the sequence of 40 coin flips and a subset of the natural numbers, by making H=1 and T=0 and reading the sequence as a binary representation. Proceed by showing that every natural number is interesting.

Comment author: wedrifid 06 October 2013 08:12:45AM 6 points [-]

You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do.

I wonder if that is true. I suspect a sufficiently competent personal marketer would be able to pull it off. Of course, it may be just as easy for them to build an equally positive reputation from absolutely nothing.

Comment author: Omegaile 09 October 2013 10:07:32PM 8 points [-]

So they are building their reputation on their marketing skills, not on the future.

Comment author: Costanza 08 October 2013 08:51:23PM 13 points [-]

"The Navy is a master plan designed by geniuses for execution by idiots. If you're not an idiot, but find yourself in the Navy, you can only operate well by pretending to be one." -Herman Wouk, The Caine Mutiny

Comment author: Omegaile 09 October 2013 10:01:26PM 3 points [-]

That quote seems to be very good in making idiots who think they are not (the majority) to behave like idiots.

Comment author: D_Malik 11 May 2013 10:34:43AM *  2 points [-]

Yes, stop all meals. You can get something a bit like a meal if you do a very high-value highly-rewarded task. Also, I let myself eat whatever I want for a few hours after doing something sufficiently awesome (such as accumulating sufficiently many CoZE points, or when I spent 3 hours coding up a system to implement another lifehack thing).

My eating habits are a lot less healthy than they used to be - chips, fruit juice, candy, chocolate-chip cookies, etc., but also healthier things like nuts, popcorn, sandwiches and meat. If you do a high-value, highly-rewarded task, you can finish things quite quickly. At the moment I feel like health isn't as important as good reinforcement, but I'm planning to research that more.

I don't do much social interaction (I don't value it highly terminally, and most of it is instrumentally useless) but have broken the system twice to eat lunch with people, and put it on hold for 3 days while away at a college's admit weekend.

Comment author: Omegaile 12 May 2013 04:22:36AM 12 points [-]

At the moment I feel like health isn't as important as good reinforcement

You traded HP for XP.

Comment author: FiftyTwo 01 April 2013 07:16:12PM 0 points [-]

Those moments send me into panic attacks. (At least when they're on significant topics not on maths).

Comment author: Omegaile 08 April 2013 03:24:57AM 1 point [-]

Math is a significant topic!

Comment author: taryneast 20 February 2011 02:47:51PM *  5 points [-]

Brilliant blogpost, and quite correct.

There are certainly situations in which the pointing out of errors is not socially appropriate, and doesn't win you any friends.

When somebody's telling a joke or an interesting anecdote, you'll often find that nobody cares if the premises are correct. You'll tend to get along better if you bite your tongue - even if it is the 500th time you've heard that "you only use 10% of your brain" (for instance).

However... I do tend to find that getting along with people that don't want to know the truth is more energy-draining (for me)... just as I'm sure that if I let my own natural preference for truth take over... I'd be draining for them.

I find that "getting along with non-rational/truth-preferring people" is a tough skill... and involves a lot of compromise.

I'd love to see more articles on how to do this successfully (without going insane or compromising your values).

Also I'd like to point out that there really are situations in which you really do have to point out that somebody is just plain wrong... despite how uncomfortable it makes the other person feel.

That while the article is quite right that being patronising is not beneficial... there are many situations where "being right" is not about being patronising, but about making sure all the bases are covered.

This is often where IT-people clash with people such as their managers. Because really, sometimes code just can't do what they're asking, no matter how much they'd like us to "put on a can-do attitude".

Similarly, clients can give ambiguous or flat-out contradictory requirements... and these errors must be pointed out, regardless of whether the person loses face by doing so. because IT have to make a profit just as much as the client does, and these kinds of errors are where later disputes arise. Nipping it in the bud by pointing out they're wrong is the best thing for your long-term survivability here.

Of course - there are ways and means of doing so to make sure that egos aren't bruised int he process... but that's another article (or two), I'm sure. :)

Comment author: Omegaile 02 April 2013 06:12:18PM 0 points [-]

I think the blog post was basically speaking in favor of the charity principle.

View more: Next