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

Comment author: Vaniver 01 May 2016 07:31:29PM 2 points [-]

Last year had just below 2% transgender and 4% other. Either a slight increase in the number of trans people or a slightly higher percentage of trans people in the diaspora community than the LW core could explain it.

It's difficult to conclude what that implies. One can tell a story about how high openness means people are more likely to identify as trans, or one can tell a story about how rationality helps one realize those sorts of things, or one can tell a story about how more young people are identifying as some sort of queer and the rationality community skews young.

Comment author: Vulture 01 May 2016 07:48:39PM 2 points [-]

I mean, you could run correlations with Openness to experience or with age, right? I guess there's probably too small of a sample size to do a lot of interesting analysis with it, but I'm sure one could do some.

Comment author: RicardoFonseca 15 September 2015 10:47:05PM *  4 points [-]

All right. Someone tell me if this is decent enough, please. I only did the first section: "Rationality and Rationalization".

Dropbox folder

How I did it:

  • Created an account at Instapaper and used their bookmarklet individually on each article.

  • Used calibre to download the articles from Instapaper and convert them to an ebook (instructions here).

  • Edited the title and other metadata in calibre to make the ebook more relevant and presentable and converted it to epub/mobi formats.

Note that I had to use the Instapaper bookmarklet starting from the last article and going backwards because calibre downloads the articles in reverse chronological order.

I don't think this is ideal, though, because the comment sections of some of these articles are good enough to be included in the reading but Instapaper only retrieves the article post, leaving out everything else. If anyone has a better suggestion, do share :)

Comment author: Vulture 19 September 2015 09:49:15PM 2 points [-]

Woah, awesome! I would love to see something like this for the whole collection.

Comment author: Vulture 28 August 2015 08:55:38PM 2 points [-]

Twist them the way you're twisted.

Or rather, don't, unless you think they have so much agency that this change in temperament will improve their utility despite massively reducing their level of satisfaction.

Comment author: Vulture 18 March 2015 02:32:21PM 5 points [-]

Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself.

-- C. S. Lewis

Comment author: 9eB1 16 March 2015 06:48:27AM 5 points [-]

This is interesting. They have been operating iPredict since 2008, but apparently got a "no action" letter from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in the US to allow US participants in the market (as long as they limited the markets in the same way Iowa University does for the IEM) 4 months ago.

The market isn't particularly efficient. For example, if you bought "No" on all the presidential candidates to win, it would cost $16.16, but would be worth at least $17 for a 5% gain. Of course, after paying the 10% fee on profits and 5% withdrawal fee you would be left with a loss, which is why this opportunity still exists.

Comment author: Vulture 18 March 2015 02:11:14PM *  1 point [-]

The market isn't particularly efficient. For example, if you bought "No" on all the presidential candidates to win, it would cost $16.16, but would be worth at least $17 for a 5% gain. Of course, after paying the 10% fee on profits and 5% withdrawal fee you would be left with a loss, which is why this opportunity still exists.

Does this affect the accuracy of the market? Serious question; I do not understand the nitty-gritty economics very well.

Comment author: bramflakes 13 March 2015 11:13:36PM *  9 points [-]

One of the most common complaints about the old Sequences was that there was no canonical default order, especially for people who didn't want to read the entire blog archive chronologically.

I was tricked into doing this. Years ago someone posted an ebook claiming to be the Sequences, but was actually just every single Yudkowsky blog post from 2006 to 2010 -_-

It took until noticing that only Yudkowsky's side of the FOOM debate was in there that I realized what had happened

Comment author: Vulture 16 March 2015 01:28:59AM 5 points [-]

Just as a little bit of a counterpoint, I loved the 2006-2010 ebook and was never particularly bothered by the length. I read the whole thing at least twice through, I think, and have occasionally used it to look up posts and so on. The format just worked really well for me. This may be because I am an unusually fast reader, or because I was young and had nothing else to do. But it certainly isn't totally useless :P

Comment author: gedymin 05 March 2015 09:08:35AM *  3 points [-]

I meant that as a comment to this:

the information less useful than what you'd get by just asking a few questions.

It's easy to lie when answering to questions about your personality on e.g. a dating site. It's harder, more expensive, and sometimes impossible to lie via signaling, such as via appearance. So, even though information obtained by asking questions is likely to be much richer than information obtained from appearances, it is also less likely to be truthful.

Comment author: Vulture 06 March 2015 02:22:37AM 0 points [-]

Oh, I see, haha. Yes, that makes more sense, and your point is well-taken.

Comment author: gedymin 04 March 2015 04:40:52PM 0 points [-]

..assuming the replies are truthful.

Comment author: Vulture 04 March 2015 11:19:34PM 0 points [-]

Why would anyone bother to send in false data about their finger-length ratios?

Comment author: SilentCal 23 February 2015 10:20:35PM 4 points [-]

If anyone has the exact wording of the no-AI promise, I'd like to examine it.

Comment author: Vulture 24 February 2015 05:53:27PM 3 points [-]

Working from memory, I believe that when asked about AI in the story, Eliezer said "they say a crackpot is someone who won't change his mind and won't change the subject -- I endeavor to at least change the subject." Obviously this is non-binding, but it still seems odd to me that he would go ahead and do the whole thing that he did with the mirror.

Comment author: Astazha 21 February 2015 09:24:02PM 21 points [-]

And then one year Baba Yaga agreed to teach Battle Magic at Hogwarts, under an old and respected truce." Professor Quirrell looked... angry, a look such as Harry had rarely seen on him. "But she was not trusted, and so there was invoked a curse.

And although Perenelle was new-come into the beauty of her youth, her heart was already blacker than Baba Yaga's own -"

Ah, yes, Perenelle, the beautiful and covetous. Perenelle seduced the Dark Lady over the months, with gentle touches and flirtations and the shy pretense of innocence. The Dark Lady's heart was captured, and they became lovers. And then one night Perenelle whispered how she had heard of Baba Yaga's shape-changing power and how this thought had enflamed her desires; thus Perenelle swayed Baba Yaga to come to her with the Stone in hand, to assume many guises in a single night, for their pleasures. Among other forms Perenelle bid Baba Yaga take the form of a man; and they lay together in the fashion of a man and a woman.

Does anyone else think this reads like Quirrel has an awful lot of emotional connection to and personal memories about this story, almost as if it were Baba Yaga speaking about herself in the 3rd person? Could Riddle or Quirrel have come across a Baba Yaga horcrux? The resurrection stone, perhaps? Earlier than that? Why would Perenelle share these secrets? How would anyone know these details if Baba Yaga was dead and Perenelle had not shared them? No one else would have been present for those private moments.

And what are the odds that a Dark Lady like Baba Yaga did not have a horcrux?

In Ch. 70 Quirrel makes a point during the S.P.H.E.W. confrontation with the headmaster that Dark Ladies are also underrepresented, and that few could name one except Baba Yaga. Self-reference?

She would probably need to be faking the map labelling her (and Harry?) as Tom Riddle, but a sorceress as powerful as Baba Yaga combined with the secrets of Salazar, who created the Hogwarts security system in the first place, could probably accomplish that.

Notice what Quirrel does and doesn't say in parseltongue:

"None of it iss known to me to be falsse," said Professor Quirrell. "Telling a tale implies filling in certain gaps; I was not present to observe when Perenelle seduced Baba Yaga. The bassicss sshould be mosstly correct, I think."

Comment author: Vulture 21 February 2015 09:55:05PM 7 points [-]

This makes some sense, but if Quirrell could bamboozle the map, surely he wouldn't do so in such a way as to reveal vitally important and damaging secrets to his enemies.

View more: Next