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

Comment author: Sniffnoy 01 December 2016 05:59:42AM 1 point [-]

Interesting. Some time ago I was planning on writing some things on how to have an argument well, but I found a lot of it was already covered by Eliezer in "37 ways words can be wrong". I think this covers a lot of the rest of it! Things like "Spot your interlocutor points so you can get to the heart of the matter; you can always unspot them later if they turn out to be more crucial than you realized."

One thing I've tried sometimes is actively proposing reasons for my interlocutor's beliefs when they don't volunteer any, and seeing if they agree with any; unfortunately this doesn't seem to have gone well when I've done it. (Maybe because the tone of "and I have a counterargument prepared for each one!" was apparent and came off as a bit too hostile. :P ) Not sure that any real conclusions can be drawn from my failures there though.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 01 December 2016 05:36:07AM 0 points [-]

I gather from SSC there's also an associated megameetup that day / next day. You might want to note this here, not sure how anyone would find it out in general (I only did by asking).

Comment author: btrettel 30 November 2016 04:31:24PM 1 point [-]

Some sort of emoticon could work, like what Facebook does.

Personally, I find the lack of feedback from an upvote or downvote to be discouraging. I understand that many people don't want to take the time to provide a quick comment, but personally I think that's silly as a 10 second comment could help a lot in many cases. If there is a possibility for a 1 second feedback method to allow a little more information than up or down, I think it's worth trying.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 30 November 2016 08:27:26PM 1 point [-]

I'm reminded of Slashdot. Not that you necessarily want to copy that, but that's some preexisting work in that direction.

Comment author: nshepperd 27 November 2016 07:06:01PM 9 points [-]

I think you're right that wherever we go next needs to be a clear schelling point. But I disagree on some details.

  1. I do think it's important to have someone clearly "running the place". A BDFL, if you like.

  2. Please no. The comments on SSC are for me a case study in exactly why we don't want to discuss politics.

  3. Something like reddit/hn involving humans posting links seems ok. Such a thing would still be subject to moderation. "Auto-aggregation" would be bad however.

  4. Sure. But if you want to replace the karma system, be sure to replace it with something better, not worse. SatvikBeri's suggestions below seem reasonable. The focus should be on maintaining high standards and certainly not encouraging growth in new users at any cost.

  5. I don't believe that the basilisk is the primary reason for LW's brand rust. As I see it, we squandered our "capital outlay" of readers interested in actually learning rationality (which we obtained due to the site initially being nothing but the sequences) by doing essentially nothing about a large influx of new users interested only in "debating philosophy" who do not even read the sequences (Eternal November). I, personally, have almost completely stopped commenting since quite a while, because doing so is no longer rewarding.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 30 November 2016 08:39:31AM *  6 points [-]

doing essentially nothing about a large influx of new users interested only in "debating philosophy" who do not even read the sequences (Eternal November).

This is important. One of the great things about LW is/was the "LW consensus", so that we don't constantly have to spend time rehashing the basics. (I dunno that I agree with everything in the "LW consensus", but then, I don't think anyone entirely did except Eliezer himself. When I say "the basics", I mean, I guess, a more universally agreed-on stripped down core of it.) Someone shows up saying "But what if nothing is real?", we don't have to debate them. That's the sort of thing it's useful to just downvote (or otherwise discourage, if we're making a new system), no matter how nicely it may be said, because no productive discussion can come of it. People complained about how people would say "read the sequences", but seriously, it saved a lot of trouble.

There were occasional interesting and original objections to the basics. I can't find it now but there was an interesting series of posts responding to this post of mine on Savage's theorem; this response argued for the proposition that no, we shouldn't use probability (something that others had often asserted, but with much less reason). It is indeed possible to come up with intelligent objections to what we consider the basics here. But most of the objections that came up were just unoriginal and uninformed, and could, in fact, correctly be answered with "read the sequences".

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!

View more: Next