= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Am I the only one who thinks that linking this site to Facebook (or any other similar site) is a really bad idea? It sounds like a recipe for an Eternal September.
In response to
How to incentivize people doing useful stuff on Less Wrong
Hi, I believe this site is for the improvement of all mankind.
Facebook may currently be a less than intelligent social networking website. But are we not here to Raise the Sanity Waterline? I can't remember which article of Lesswrong indicated that it may be prudent not to enhance the upper reaches of Rationality, but to improve the lower end so that there are more people available to enhance the upper end. ( I believe there was an article (not This One but another) that went into detail on this.
While there may be downsides to facebook viewing, I would like to point out it can be negated reasonably. (Or unreasonably in my example:) Just by having a cookie on that facebook link so that if a non-member clicks it, it transparently prevents them from signing up for a week. As many people from facebook will immediately like the article before posting a reply, many of the 'quick responders' will be eliminated... unless they come back in a weeks time.
Alternatively, just manage the facebook like to only go to an article without comments, this prevents the 'easy' facebookers from signing up and continuing, while those with a little more wit can parse back the URL to go to the main site.
Lesswrong has the brainpower to come up with some ideas to manage this, and I think it'd make a great community project to sort out how to do so.
In response to
Your inner Google
Hi, The post is short, sweet and get's the point across. However I feel it could be better with a little bit more information including multiple sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify
In response to
Rationality Quotes September 2011
If other Mediators come to a different conclusion from mine, that is their affair. It may be that their facts are incomplete, or their aims different. I judge on the evidence.
-Whitbreads Fyunch(click), by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle in "The Mote in God's Eye".
This doesn't really comment that Whitbreads may have incomplete evidence, facts, bias or his own aims.
Do you consider this a promotion of fun theory? Or a justification for living forever?
Can also be an indication that everything is more than one person/mind can handle. By stepping into the sun, we enjoy the warmth and may be overwhelmed by the world as we see it. The song's lyrics seem cautionary, indicating that despite the warmth of being in the world do not attempt to see everything, do not attempt to do everything? This is rational, there are things we may not enjoy as much as others. To reduce our overall enjoyment by not placing parameters on our activities would be irrational in my opinion.
(Though if a thousand people tried striking at the root at once they'd undoubtedly end up striking each other. (I wish there was something I could read that non-syncretically worked out analogies between algorithmic information theory and game-theory/microeconomics.))
That sounds awfully negative and I can't see any basis for it apart from negativity. ie: For what basis do you declare that people striking the root are any more likely to strike each other than striking the branches?
While you might use the analogy to declare that the root of the problem is smaller, please note that there are trees (like Giant sequoias ) which have root systems that far outdistance the branch width.
I disagree, especially with the second part. For a trivial example, take the traditional refutation of Kantianism: You are hiding Jews in your house during WWII. A Nazi shows up and asks if you are hiding any Jews.
I'm going to have to call you on this one, in your trivial example you are intending harm/chaos/diversion to/to/of the Nazi plan. Causing disruption to another is vicious, even if you are being virtuous in your choice to disrupt.
You can go too far with that though. Separating categories is only useful insofar as we care about the differences between them. If you don't want to get shot and don't care why you're being shot, then there's not much sense in separating options that lead directly to that outcome.
Obviously there are a lot more than 149 options. You could stick the barrel into your mouth, for instance, using either your left or right hand. But if you start counting this way it's obvious that these options are useless and a waste of brain space. A good decisionmaker needs not only to be aware of the options available to them, but to be able to dismiss the bad options with a minimum of wasted thought.
I agree with going too far, this quote seems to me to be reflecting extremities and mid-ranges categorization. Yes, there's a lot more than 149 options, but there's many which are functionally the same, and categorizing it all under two options 'Get Shot' & 'Do what they say' doesn't take into consideration 'Do what they say, then get shot to hide witnesses' or any other option, it parses all options into mutually exclusive categories when in reality, they're not mutually exclusive.
By enforcing the two phase blanketing mentality, there's no consideration of changing of situation or any other variables. (Such as, 'wait to attention elsewhere, escape.'). A good decision maker does need to be able to dismiss bad options with minimal thought, but dismissing good(Less Wrong!) options with the bad is detrimental as well. What I'm taking from the quote is not that I must consider every option (The first speaker does not, he/she merely considers three and states the existence of others.) but that I must be cognizant of the fact that there are other options available and not categorize them in such a way that they are unavailable to my self.
As I'm new to Rationality, this may be a little convoluted, if you could explain any holes in what I am trying to explain I will be grateful.
Of course, lots of those things, including "pull out a bigger gun," fall under the practical category of "get shot."
I am sure that this quote indicates that categorizing options too far is detrimental. The Sequence on Reductionism's summary states 'complicated things are made of simpler things' but categorizing all the simple things together despite their belonging to separate complicated things should indicate a fallacy. It also indicates that the entirety of the options available are not considered properly if they're grouped too much.
What makes this a rationality quote?
Am I reading too much into this quote when I think it's referring to not crushing people's beliefs when they're incapable of surviving the damage to their Self? When I look at that (out of context, as I have not read the source) I'm seeing that without breakfast (a sturdy base to build upon) the character is not ready to have their beliefs destroyed.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
We can fix this by having karma be multiplied when it is donated. So if I donate 100 karma to see some task completed that will reward the person who does that task with 200 karma. Another idea (that I prefer) is that the karma bounty you post is returned to you (as well as given to the other person) when a task is completed.
On stackexchange style sites users are awarded with the power to do site admin tasks as a reward for tasking the karma ladder. For instance 2000 karma nets you the ability to edit others post (helpfully correcting broken links). Obviously there are still consequences if you use your powers for evil.
Independent of modifications to the karma system, more users should be given such editting powers. In particular the sequences could do with being more interlinked, and I would happily do this given the chance. Putting links to the next post in the sequence at the end of every post would increase their addictiveness substantially, pulling in more readers.
Finally, it occurs that making such modifications might use more work than simply making the changes that would otherwise have rewards posted for them.
I'd like to see that. throw in an editor that allows you to suggest changes, then two others have to approve it for it to be actioned. Follow this up with the post in question having a link at the bottom 'Possible Changes Pending' so that others can be notified and then power it up with a Karma connection
(Formula:(PostKarma/10/Editors changes) rounded up to one would give a single editor 5 points for a fifty point article, five editors with approximately equal changes one karma each... or 1 each for 4 and two for the fifth editor who contributed between 20% and 40% of the approved editor changes)