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

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 20 January 2017 01:19:17AM 1 point [-]

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?

Comment author: eeuuah 04 June 2016 12:37:27AM 0 points [-]

To flesh out my opinion:

  • I have basically all notifications off (really only for calls, texts, and alarms), which minimizes the downsides
  • having maps / search available all the time is really convenient. I used to spend a lot of effort either looking up directions or being lost, now I don't
    • I've found that using my phone to triage emails / rss / whatever is faster than on a full computer, because of the touchscreen
  • it functions as a mobile hot spot (not sure if older phones do this) so when it's nice out I can sit in the park and work, which is pretty pleasant
  • it converts small amounts of downtime into interesting reading opportunities (not really roi, but enjoyable)

Generally speaking, the smartphone keeps my tools close to me instead of at home. I use anki, beeminder, my calendar and other electronic assistance heavily, so I think that might be why I get more value out of it.

Comment author: Regex 07 June 2016 01:50:45AM 0 points [-]

My first thought: "Oh, you leave your house."

I'm either at my computer or class with little time between, so there isn't much downtime for me to even use my phone. It is just an alarm clock people can talk to me from.

Admittedly I do have a tablet, but for the most part it is used for taking notes and so it may as well be replaced by a paper notebook, but I'm a sucker for OneNote. Because I spend every non-class minute walking or at home I've yet to give my tablet another role beyond that since my desktop is so much superior.

Comment author: WikiLogicOrg 14 May 2016 10:31:27AM *  1 point [-]

Hello!

I am new to this site but judging from HPMOR and some articles I read here, I think I have come to the right place for some help.

I am working on the early stages of a project called WikiLogic which has many aims. Here are some that may interest LW readers specifically:

-Make skills such as logical thinking, argument construction and fallacy recognition accessible to the general public

-Provide a community created database of every argument ever made along with their issues and any existing solutions

-Highlight the dependencies between different fields in academic circles

The project requires knowledge of Bayes networks, linguistics and many more fields that I have little experience of although i am always learning. This is why I am looking for you guys to review the idea and let me know your thoughts. At this stage, unfiltered advise on any aspect of the project is welcome.

The general idea along with a short video can be found on the front page of the main site:

http://www.wikilogicfoundation.org/

Feel free to explore the site and wiki to get a better feel of what I am trying to do. Please forgive poorly written or unfinished parts of the site. It is early days and it seems unproductive to finish before I get feedback that may change its course...

Comment author: Regex 14 May 2016 09:52:05PM *  3 points [-]

Welcome!

I've seen these sorts of argument maps before.

https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Debate_tools http://en.arguman.org/

It seems there is some overlap with your list here

Generally what I've noticed about them is that they focus very hard on things like fallacies. One problem here is that some people are simply better debaters even though their ideas may be unsound. Because they can better follow the strict argument structure they 'win' debates, but actually remain incorrect.

For example: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1437 He uses mostly the same arguments debate after debate and so has a supreme advantage over his opponents. He picks apart the responses, knowing full well all of the problems with typical responses. There isn't really any discussion going on anymore. It is an exercise in saying things exactly the right way without invoking a list of problem patterns. See: http://lesswrong.com/lw/ik/one_argument_against_an_army/

Now, this should be slightly less of an issue since everyone can see what everyone's arguments are, and we should expect highly skilled people on both sides of just about every issue. That said the standard for actual solid evidence and arguments becomes rather ridiculous. It is significantly easier to find some niggling problem with your opponents argument than to actually address its core issues.

I suppose I'm trying to describe the effects of the 'fallacy fallacy.'

Thus a significant portion of manpower is spent on wording and putting the argument precisely exactly right instead of dealing with the underlying facts. You'll also have to deal with the fact that if a majority of people believe something then the shear amount of manpower they can spend on shoring up their own arguments and poking holes in their opponents will make it difficult for minority views to look like they hold water.

What are we to do with equally credible citations that say opposing things?

'Every argument ever made' is a huge goal. Especially with the necessary standards people hold arguments to. Are you sure you've got something close to the right kind of format to deal with that? How many such formats have you tried? Why are you thinking of using this one over those? Has this resulted in your beliefs actually changing at any point? Has this actually improved the quality of arguments? Have you tried testing them with totally random people off of the street versus nerds versus academics? Is it actually fun to do it this way?

From what I have seen so far I'll predict there will be a the lack of manpower, and that you'll end up with a bunch of arguments marked full of holes in perpetual states of half-completion. Because making solid arguments is hard there will be very few of them. I suspect arguments about which citations are legitimate will become very heavily recursive. Especially so on issues where academia's ideological slates come into play.

I've thought up perhaps four or five similar systems, but none of which I've actually gone out and tested for effectiveness at coming to correct conclusions about the world. It is easy to generate a way of organizing information, but it needs to be thoroughly tested for effectiveness before it is actually implemented.

In this case effectiveness would mean

  • production of solid arguments in important areas
  • be fun to play
  • maybe actually change someone's mind every now and then
  • low-difficulty of use/simple to navigate

A word tabooing feature would be helpful: http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/ (The entire Map and Territory, How to Actually Change Your Mind, and A Human's Guide To Words sequences would be things I'd consider vital information for making such a site)

It may be useful for users to see their positions on particular topics change over time. What do they agree with now and before? What changed their mind?

I hope that helped spark some thoughts. Good luck!

Comment author: Regex 14 May 2016 05:49:15PM 0 points [-]

Before stepping in front of a car make eye contact with the driver.

Do not assume they saw you just because they slowed down.

View more: Next