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

Comment author: Houshalter 12 September 2016 01:31:58AM 1 point [-]

I didn't design the questions and those are the official answers. And it does seems correct to me, that it should include all bills ever printed and not just those currently being printed.

I'm really not sure how to do your second point. I could fit all the answers into a normal distribution sure, but what information does that give me for any specific individual? It doesn't really tell me what their true probability of getting the question correct was, which I can already get from the percent of people that answered each question correctly.

The third idea is interesting, comparing people who got the same number of answers right. But it still does reward luck and prior knowledge. As I showed, people have indistinguishable probabilities of getting each question right, all that differs is how overconfident or underconfident they are.That model seems to produce the best correlations as well.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 15 September 2016 11:11:36PM 1 point [-]

Agree with Luke about the Hamilton questions. I read it about current ones. If it meant "has appeared on", it should say "has appeared on", not "appears on". While certainly the latter can be read as all the ones he's ever appeared on, the more natural interpretation to me means those currently being printed.

You can probably get some idea to what extent it was interpreted this way by looking at the size of the answers. I'd say, if we assume people have some idea how American currency works, then 0-1 probably indicates a "present" interpretation, 3 or more will almost always indicate an "ever" interpretation, and 2 is hard to tell from. But that is assuming people have some idea of how American currency works.

Comment author: ingres 25 June 2016 07:14:35PM *  1 point [-]

Siderea was included because she was mentioned as part of a LiveJournal LW-disapora community. Which seemed interesting enough to try sniffing out.

To my memory none of the write in blogs were interesting, but I could take another look.

If we're going to talk about omissions, I didn't include UNSONG. To be fair, this was because I figured Scott already had readership statistics for UNSONG and it was a relatively new story at the time I was making the survey, so it didn't really 'fit'.

In retrospect, I'm sure Scott has the straightforward readership statistics, but being able to do a more in depth analysis of his demographics would have been nice.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 26 June 2016 06:15:24AM 1 point [-]

Siderea was included because she was mentioned as part of a LiveJournal LW-disapora community. Which seemed interesting enough to try sniffing out.

Right, I'm saying I don't think that mention is an accurate description. She may be read by a bunch of LWers after some prominent recent posts, but she doesn't seem part of the LW diaspora community in any way other than that. Not necessarily a bad thing to ask about, of course, if she is much read! It just stood out as odd.

To my memory none of the write in blogs were interesting, but I could take another look.

Just on a quick look-through, Shtetl-Optimized seems to have come up a bunch.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 25 June 2016 06:55:02PM 2 points [-]

Nothing here about the write-in blogs?

Siderea is a surprising inclusion. Her blog is insightful, I'll agree, but it doesn't seem to either have a particular rationality focus, nor does she seem to be connected to LessWrong socially. Is it just a case of "a bunch of people mentioned reading her" thing?

"Blindsight" seems maybe worth mentioning in the story section due to how often it's been discussed here, IMO.

Comment author: ingres 12 June 2016 08:17:14PM 1 point [-]

Small note, "jargon" and "none of the above" seem to be missing codes/numbers in the philosophy table.

That's because they didn't get used. I should probably just remove them.

Edit: Also, the the tagged community write-ins is a 404 (there's a missing slash in the URL).

Fixed.

(I wouldn't bother pointing this out, as as you've said this is necessarily messy and subjectve, but this one particular one seemed directly backwards.)

You seem to be correct, I was trying really hard to power through these and I think I mixed these two up:

14:41 < namespace> "To be fair I wasn't around for the peak, however, I'd cite the aforementioned Basilisk. It suddenly presents a sort of 'Rational Devil' to a super intelligent Al's 'Rational Messiah'. It's silly and mildly off-putting. Thankfully the information on the site, especially the Sequences, is far too useful to just toss aside. | NERB"

14:42 < namespace> "A tendency to hyperfocus on the ridiculousness of Roko's Basilisk stopped most people (inside and outside of LessWrong) from thinking about more-plausible acausal-trade-based ideas. | TMRB"

Won't fix though because the numbers come out the same anyway.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 12 June 2016 09:44:28PM 0 points [-]

OK, thanks!

Comment author: Sniffnoy 12 June 2016 05:33:33PM *  0 points [-]

Small note, "jargon" and "none of the above" seem to be missing codes/numbers in the philosophy table.

Edit: Also, the the tagged community write-ins is a 404 (there's a missing slash in the URL).

Further edit: I suspect you've misunderstood the one "NERB"; I think it's complaining about the discussion of Roko's Basilisk, not about there not being enough of it. The question asked about problems, right? (I wouldn't bother pointing this out, as as you've said this is necessarily messy and subjectve, but this one particular one seemed directly backwards.)

Comment author: ingres 25 May 2016 09:07:46PM *  1 point [-]

I'm going to add these as html/text files to the "Basic Results" section. Thanks for reminding me. In the mean time they're available in the public data release.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 27 May 2016 01:29:10PM 0 points [-]

I see, thanks!

Comment author: Sniffnoy 25 May 2016 12:49:07PM 1 point [-]

Question: Where in the data do we find the various write-in answers? Like for the blogs and such.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 24 May 2016 01:26:36AM 2 points [-]

All the links to the data appear to have gone down.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 28 February 2016 10:44:51PM 0 points [-]

I'll be gone by then, so I'm afraid you'll have to count me out, sorry!

Comment author: Bound_up 15 February 2016 09:27:26PM 0 points [-]

How about the Harlan Hatcher Graduate Libary. University of Michigan, 913 S University Ave, Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Alternatively, for food, Amer's has been mentioned, which is at 611 Church St, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, right off campus. It looks like central campus to me, but in any case, there's the address.

Or we could go anywhere else anyone might recommend.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 16 February 2016 05:58:32AM 1 point [-]

Note that if you want it to be at Amer's you should make sure people know which one! There's an Amer's on State as well.

View more: Next