Comment author: [deleted] 24 October 2012 11:17:24AM 2 points [-]

I think it may be a Karma thing. I think you need 20 Karma to post to Main, and I think adding a meetup posts to Main, so I think Adding a meetup requires you to have 20 Karma. I created a new dummy account with 0 Karma to check, and I couldn't make a Meetup either, so it's not just you.

Comment author: Sohum 24 October 2012 10:31:27PM 0 points [-]

Thanks for checking that! I apparently have 5 karma now, and the Add A New Meetup button has appeared, so the karma-required seems to be there instead.

Comment author: FrankAdamek 23 October 2012 03:06:48PM 1 point [-]

Glad to help get awareness back out, that's what these posts are for. How does it sound to schedule a meetup and post it? I'll put it in the list, and I put meetups for the following week into the headline.

Comment author: Sohum 24 October 2012 10:29:57PM 0 points [-]

Looks like Douglas_Reay made the meetup post http://lesswrong.com/meetups/f7 , so cheers!

Comment author: DaFranker 23 October 2012 05:20:04PM 1 point [-]

The button is next to your total karma score on the right sidebar, under "Create new article". It's a special post type which probably also adds the location to the front page "Upcoming meetups" google map pins.

Comment author: Sohum 24 October 2012 09:31:40AM 2 points [-]

Yea, I'm not seeing it. "Create new article", "Preferences", and "Log out".

Comment author: FrankAdamek 23 October 2012 03:06:48PM 1 point [-]

Glad to help get awareness back out, that's what these posts are for. How does it sound to schedule a meetup and post it? I'll put it in the list, and I put meetups for the following week into the headline.

Comment author: Sohum 23 October 2012 05:00:58PM 3 points [-]

What does it mean to "schedule a meetup and post it"? I get the feeling that there's a button I'm missing somewhere... (and if it involves making a Post post, I actually have no karma :P)

A few other people on the cambridgelesswrong mailing list have popped up saying they're coming, so it looks like we're gathering steam!

Comment author: Sohum 22 October 2012 10:23:52PM 1 point [-]

Cambridge, UK's regular meetup seems to have died a little bit, but me and one other person are looking to get it started again.

Would it be possible to shout out a Helpful Reminder About Its Existence on the next aggregation post?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 03 March 2012 03:42:36AM 6 points [-]

I noticed that there is a certain perfectly rational process that can feel a lot like rationalization from the inside:

Suppose I were to present you with plans for a perpetual motion machine. You would then engage in a process that looks a lot like rationalization to explain why my plan can't work as advertised.

This is of course perfectly rational since the probability that my proposal would actually work is tiny. However, this example does leave me wondering how to separate rationalization from rationality possibly with excessively strong priors.

Comment author: Sohum 08 March 2012 01:18:17PM *  1 point [-]

What's happening there, I think, is that you have received a piece of evidence ("this guy's claims to have designed a perpetual motion machine") and you, upon processing that information, slightly increase your probability that perpetual motion machines are plausible and highly increase your probability that he's lying or joking or ignorant. Then you seek to test that new hypothesis: you search for flaws in the blueprints first because your beliefs say you have the highest likelihood of finding new evidence if you do so, and you would think it more likely that you've missed something than that the machine could actually work. However, after the proper sequence of tests all coming out in favour, you would not be opposed to building the machine to check; you're not opposed to the theoretical possibility that we've suddenly discovered free energy.

In rationalisation, at least the second and possibly both parts of the process differ. You seek to confirm the hypothesis, not test it, so check what the theoretical world in which the hypothesis is unarguably false feels like, maybe? Checking whether you had the appropriate evidence to form the hypothesis in the first place is also a useful check, though I suppose false positives would happen on that one.