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

Comment author: Lumifer 31 March 2017 03:40:29PM 3 points [-]

Teach a man to reinvent a wheel every time he needs one and you'll have a lot of funny wheels (and not much of anything else).

Comment author: Regex 02 April 2017 08:33:10PM 0 points [-]

This points to a need of looking for, building off prior work where possible.

Taking it a step further to generate a method of meta-solving this problem: there are many parallels here to programming and device connectors of old (phone charger or other standards). I would imagine we could look to how those sorts of problems were solved and apply or derive the analogous technique here.

Comment author: Regex 26 March 2017 11:15:39PM *  1 point [-]

It seems to me that the sadistic simulator would fill up their suffering simulator to capacity. But is it worse for two unique people to be simulated and suffering compared to the same person simulated and suffering twice? If we say copies suffering is less bad than unique minds, If they didn't have enough unique human minds, they could just apply birth/genetics and grow some more.

This is more of a simulating-minds-at-all problem than a unique-minds-left-to-simulate problem.

Comment author: CellBioGuy 24 March 2017 10:20:18PM 10 points [-]

PhD acquired.

Comment author: Regex 25 March 2017 01:05:37AM 3 points [-]

Now people have to call you doctor CellBioGuy

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 20 January 2017 01:19:17AM 2 points [-]

What's wrong with gold stars for everyone who makes a non-spammy, coherent point?

Comment author: Regex 20 January 2017 05:10:18AM *  1 point [-]

Comment being non-spam and coherent is considered a bare minimum around here. Using the rule of upvoting nearly everything would induce noise. With the current schema of being a signal of quality, or used to say 'more like this' (not necessarily even 'I agree') provides a strong signal of quality discourse which is lost otherwise.

Comment author: Regex 19 January 2017 11:45:33PM *  0 points [-]

Evolving thoughts link is down. Archive.org link

Comment author: Regex 08 January 2017 09:30:56PM *  1 point [-]

The results of my five minutes of thinking:

take sample of group you want to measure sanity for:

  • productivity
  • goal achievement
  • correct predictions, especially correct contrarians
  • ability to recognize fallacious thinking
  • willingness to engage with political opponents
  • ability to develop nuanced political opinions
  • ability to detect lies and deception in information sources

Went in a different direction than the post. The list I generated seems to have turned far more to abstract individual sanity ideas than things we already have numbers for.

Comment author: Elo 22 June 2016 01:51:56AM *  -2 points [-]

Saying all this without actually seeing the app

I have been trying out systems for a while now. So has Regex and various others.

The introspective thing that I have noticed, and you mentioned here without clearly identifying it is the iterative development of systems. Which is to say that you started on paper, and moved to spreadsheet and after moved to an app (as well as probably several versions of each).

What makes the final version work in the face of potential complexity of starting a new system (and taking a leap) is partly the fact that you lived through the various versions, and know why/how/whatFor different factors have changed to improve the system (such is the pure nature of iterative system development).

HOWEVER by publishing only your final version you only publish the (probably very good) system that you are used to, and not all the intermediate steps that made it possible and necessary to get to here. While I imagine that every possible latest system so far developed by many many various people (Productivity Ninja, GTD, FVP to name a few), will have good features and functionality that are neat of themselves, without the iterative stages, you don't really give people the same final system that you have come to be accustomed to.

What I am saying is; I'd like to see the whole process to how you got here in the hopes of making sense of your successes/failures of systems to do what you want them to do and following that be better able to apply it to my own systems.

On top of that; a dream app would be one that starts as a simple list (like you did), and gradually offers you to add complexity to your system (like you ended up making). But in such a way as to let people progress to the final version when they need//want it.

I will look at the app and get back to you.

Comment author: Regex 27 June 2016 03:14:34PM *  0 points [-]

I think you're coming on a little strong in ways you don't intend for requesting his process and previous system iterations. This reads as if you should never share any system without also sharing the process of how to get there, and most of the time that is filled with stuff no one really needs to see.

Comment author: Regex 27 June 2016 04:02:48AM 0 points [-]

Alas, this group went bust, but I think I pretty much figured out why. Wrote my thoughts up for everyone's pleasure.

Comment author: ChristianKl 17 June 2016 06:34:57PM 1 point [-]

Thinking Fast and Slow isn't about how to teach high school students. The curriculum might have ideas about how to go about that.

Comment author: Regex 18 June 2016 02:55:22AM *  1 point [-]

I agree. Nowhere else are we likely to get something optimized for that especially since it took nearly a decade to create.

Comment author: michaelkeenan 10 April 2014 06:57:09AM 12 points [-]

Re-reading this many years later, I noticed something:

In 1976 one of us (Daniel Kahneman) was involved in a project designed to develop a curriculum for the study of judgment and decision making under uncertainty for high schools in Israel...the project went on along its predictably unforeseeable path to eventual completion some eight years later.

There exists a curriculum for the study of judgment and decision making under uncertainty for high schools! Someone spent eight years developing it! Where can we get this curriculum?

Comment author: Regex 17 June 2016 04:41:41PM 3 points [-]

Apparently it "never saw daylight". I bet he'd still have a copy for the materials if one were to get in contact with him. How much of that wouldn't be in Thinking Fast and Slow though?

View more: Next