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

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 22 November 2016 06:30:03AM *  0 points [-]

"Everyone on this site obviously has an interest in being, on a personal level, more rational."

Not in my experience. In fact, I was downvoted and harshly criticized for expressing confusion at gwern posting on this site and yet having no apparent interest in being rational.

Comment author: Sable 22 November 2016 12:09:42AM *  3 points [-]

My understanding of #3 is that it comes from a place of insecurity. Someone secure in their own intelligence, or at least of their own self-worth, will either ignore the unknown word/phrase/idea, ask about it, or look it up.

So from the inside, #3 feels something like: "Look, I know you're smart, but you don't have to rub it in, okay? I mean, just 'cause I don't know what 'selective pressures in tribal mechanics' are doesn't make me stupid."

My guess is that it feels as though the other person is using a higher level vocabulary on purpose, rather than incidentally; kind of the like the opposite of the fundamental attribution error. Instead of generalizing situation-specific behavior to personality (i.e. "Oh, he's not trying to make me feel stupid, that's just how he talks"), people assume that personality-specific behavior is situational (i.e. "he's talking like that just to confuse me").

Also, I think a lot of the reaction you're going to get out of someone when using a word or idea they don't know is going to depend upon your nonverbal signals. Are you saying it like you assume that they know it? I've had professors who talk about really complex subjects I didn't fully understand as though they were obvious, and that tended to make me feel dumb. I doubt they were doing it on purpose - to them it was obvious - but by paying a little bit more attention to the inferential distance between the two of us, they could have moderated their tones and body language a bit to convey something a little less disdainful, even if the disdain itself was accidental.

Lastly, when it comes to communication I tend to favor the direct approach. If at any point I think the other person doesn't understand what I'm saying, I try to back up and explain it better. Sometimes I just flat-out ask if they understood, and if not, try to explain it, all while emphasizing that it isn't a word/phrase/idea that I (or anyone) would expect them to know.

True or not, the above strategy has been effective for me in reducing confrontation when the scenario you're describing happens.

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 22 November 2016 06:19:39AM 1 point [-]

"Instead of generalizing situation-specific behavior to personality (i.e. "Oh, he's not trying to make me feel stupid, that's just how he talks"), people assume that personality-specific behavior is situational (i.e. "he's talking like that just to confuse me")."

Those aren't really mutually exclusive. "Talking like that just to confuse his listeners is just how he talks". It could be an attribution not of any specific malice, but generalized snootiness.

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 22 November 2016 06:08:30AM 0 points [-]

This may seem pedantic, but given that this post is on the importance of precision:

"Some likely died."

Should be

"Likely, some died".

Also, I think you should more clearly distinguish between the two means, such as saying "sample average" rather than "your average". Or use x bar and mu.

The whole concept of confidence is rather problematic, because it's on the one hand one of the most common statistical measures presented to the public, but on the other hand it's one of the most difficult concepts to understand.

What makes the concept of CI so hard to explain is that pretty every time the public is presented with it, they are presented with one particular confidence interval, and then given the 95%, but the 95% is not a property of the particular confidence interval, it's a property of the process that generated it. The public understands "95% confidence interval" as being an interval that has a 95% chance of containing the true mean, but actually a 95% confidence interval is an interval generated by a process, where the process has a 95% chance of generating a confidence interval that contains the true mean.

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 21 August 2016 11:15:47PM 0 points [-]

No, it's not 1% of the bet. My income goes up in the future meaning that the utility of money goes down. My mortality rate goes up since I am young, so the value of cryonics goes up.

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 25 August 2016 01:58:24AM 1 point [-]

By how many orders of magnitude? Would you play Russian Roulette for $10/day? It seemed to me that implicit in your argument was that even if someone disagrees with you about the expected value, an order of magnitude or so wouldn't invalidate it. There's a rather narrow set of circumstances where your argument doesn't apply to your own situation. Simply asserting that you will sign up soon is far from sufficient. And note that many conditions necessitate further conditions; for instance, if you claim that your current utility/dollar ratio is ten times what it will be in a year, then you'd better not have turned down any loans with APY less than 900%.

And how does the value of cryonics go up as your mortality rate does? Are you planning on enrolling in a program with a fixed monthly fee?

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 23 August 2016 06:06:14PM 0 points [-]

"Also there are important risks that we are in simulation, but that it is created not by our possible ancestors"

Do you mean "descendants"?

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 21 August 2016 09:35:23AM *  0 points [-]

I can answer the deposit one: Signal told me personally that they'd refund it in the first week if I wanted to quit due to it being a bad program. In reality it was good. I cannot guarantee that they'd extend this to anyone but you can ask.

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 21 August 2016 06:26:22PM 1 point [-]

What about after the program, if you don't get a job, or don't get a job in the data science field?

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 21 August 2016 09:32:29AM 0 points [-]

No, that doesn't work if I expect to sign up soon.

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 21 August 2016 06:25:37PM 1 point [-]

1% of a bad bet is still a bad bet.o

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 21 August 2016 09:42:46AM *  0 points [-]

what sort of evidence E does Signal have to offer, such that I should update towards it being effective, given both E, and "E has been selected by Signal, and Signal has an interest in choosing E to be as flattering rather than as informative as possible"

Well I got a job out of it.

As for statistics, they're new enough that you'd want to wait a bit.

IMO Signal is worth the ~very little that you have to pay for it unless you already are getting job offers or already are very good with R (but then why do you want a bootcamp?)

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 21 August 2016 06:22:18PM 1 point [-]

They should have some statistics, even if they're not completely conclusive.

As I understand it, the costs are:

$1400 for lodging (commuting would cost even more) $2500 deposit (not clear on the refund policy) 10% of next year's income (with deposit going towards this)

I wouldn't characterize that as "very little". It's enough to warrant asking a lot of questions.

How would you characterize the help you got getting a job? Getting an interview? Knowing what to say in an interview? Having verifiable skills?

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 11 August 2016 09:36:19PM 2 points [-]

Nope, but my finances are pretty dire right now, though when I do I will certainly post about it. Thanks for asking.

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 21 August 2016 02:59:55AM 1 point [-]

Are your finances so dire that if someone offered you $1/day in exchange for playing Russian Roulette, you would accept? If not, aren't you being just as irrational as you are accusing those who fail to accept your argument of being?

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 21 August 2016 02:12:23AM 0 points [-]

You might want to consider what the objective is, and whether you should have different resources for different objectives. Someone who's in a deeply religious community who would be ostracized if people found out they're an atheist would need different resources than someone in a more secular environment who simply wants to find other atheists to socialize with.

I think I should also mention your posting a URL but not making it clickable You should put anchors in your site. For instance, there should at the very least be anchors at "New atheists", "Theists", and "“Old” Atheists", and links to the anchors when you first list those three categories, if not an outline at the beginning and links to the parts. Organizationally, it's a bit of a mess; for instance, the "Communities of Atheists." heading isn't set out from the rest of the text at all.

View more: Next