Comment author: Xece 05 November 2012 05:31:00AM *  27 points [-]

Thanks for doing this once again Yvain.

Edit: survey taken.

Comment author: Nighteyes5678 25 September 2012 09:55:03PM 3 points [-]

When I did discussion groups like these, one useful term I introduced was a "canned answer". This is any answer that can be supplied without any original thought or analysis, as if they just went into the cellar of their mind and pulled out a can. Introducing this term as a negative thing and banning "canned answers" puts focus on taking a moment to think before speaking. It got to the point where I was able to just look at someone and twist my hand - they'd instantly stop and think. The group also became self-policing and started asking, "that seemed a little fast; do you think it was canned?" to check themselves.

It's a term I found useful. I hope your group continues to go well!

Comment author: Xece 25 September 2012 10:52:02PM *  1 point [-]

Is this more or less the same thing as Cached Thoughts?

Comment author: shminux 23 September 2012 06:18:33PM 2 points [-]

The one-boxer's main argument was that given the god is a perfect predictor, the best choice was to one-box, as it would be impossible for two-boxing to yield $1,001,000.

"But the million is either there or not, might as well go for it!" -- how do you reconcile this with the "impossible for two-boxing to yield $1,001,000" without discussing free will?

Comment author: Xece 23 September 2012 07:03:54PM 1 point [-]

To be honest, I didn't. I let them talk it out and the issue of free will never came up.

Comment author: shminux 23 September 2012 08:21:01AM 4 points [-]

How did you manage to discuss the Newcomb's paradox without deviating into free will and inside/outside view?

Comment author: Xece 23 September 2012 06:08:05PM 0 points [-]

They just accepted the "god" used to phrase the problem as a perfect predictor. Most of the debate/discussion was centred around the fact whether or not it was more "logical" to choose both boxes (no debate on its definition, thankfully). The one-boxer's main argument was that given the god is a perfect predictor, the best choice was to one-box, as it would be impossible for two-boxing to yield $1,001,000.

High School Lecture - Report

19 Xece 23 September 2012 02:06AM

This post is a followup report to this.

 

On Friday's lecture, I was able to briefly cover several topics as an introduction. They centred around rationality (what it is), truth (what it is and why we should pursue it), and Newcomb's Paradox.

The turnout was as expected (6 out of a total 7 group members, with 1 having other obligations that day). Throughout the talk I would ask for some proposed definitions before giving them. It is unfortunate when I asked what "truth" is, mysterious answers such as "truth is the meaning of life", and "truth is the pursuit of truth". When asked what they meant by their answers, they either rephrased what they said with the same vagueness or were unable to give an answer. One member, however, did say that "Truth is what is real", only to have other members ask what he meant by "real". It offered a rather nice opportunity for a map-and-territory tangent before giving some version of "The Simple Truth".

I used the definitions given in 'What Do We Mean By "Rationality"?' to describe epistemic and instrumental rationality, and gave several examples as to what rationality is not (Dr. Spock, logic/reason, etc). As a practice, I introduced Newcomb's Paradox. There was ample debate with an even split between one-box and two-boxers. Due to time constraints, we weren't able to come to a conclusion (although the one-boxing side was making a stronger argument). By the end of lunch period, everyone seemed to have a good grasp that rationality is simply making the best decision to achieve one's goals, whatever they may be.

Overall, I'd say it was successful. My next turn is on October 3rd, and apart from a little review, I'm going to go over the 5-second level, and use of words. Saying what they mean is something we as a group need to work on.

High School Lectures

8 Xece 15 September 2012 06:05AM

Just recently at my high school, a group of classmates and I started a science club. A major component of this is listening and giving peer lectures on topics of physics, math, computer science, etc. I picked a topic a bit off to the side: philosophy and decision making. Naturally, this includes rationality. My plan is to start with something based off the sequences, specifically "How to Actually Change Your Mind" and "A Human's Guide to Words".

I was hoping the Less Wrong community could give me some suggestions, tips, or even alternative ways to approach this. There is no end goal, we just want to learn more and think better. All our members are among the top 5% academically of their own grade. Most of us are seniors and have finished high school math, taking AP Calculus this year. We have covered basic statistics and Bayes' Theorem, but only applied it to the Disease Problem.

Any help or ideas are appreciated.

 

Update: Thank you for all these suggestions! They are incredibly helpful for me. I will attempt to make a recording of the lecture period if possible. I will make another discussion post sometime next weekend (the first lecture is next Friday) to report how it went.

 

Update 2: Report here.

Comment author: Xece 08 March 2012 12:22:36AM *  3 points [-]

Knowing is always better than not knowing

--Gregory House, M.D. - S02E11 "Need to Know"

Comment author: Xece 28 January 2012 03:49:55AM 5 points [-]

The Center for Better Reasoning

Comment author: Xece 20 January 2012 02:53:14PM 1 point [-]

Option to sort by judged/unjudged predictions.

Comment author: Xece 27 December 2011 06:34:17AM 1 point [-]

I remember back in elementary school, all the teachers would so "there's no such thing as a stupid question. They even had posters of that on the doors.

Ironically, most of my class (IIRC) never bothered to ask questions or clear up confusion during class. They preferred to ask peers. If they went to ask the teacher during some other time, I wouldn't know. I was a frequent go-to person for math and science; this covered my other poor grades (social studies, art) via Halo Effect and made me appear "smart".

I took to Google for Social Studies.

Somewhere between that and now (Junior year) I figured out that nobody actually remembers when someone asks a stupid question in class. Generally, anyway; every now and then there's something ridiculously funny.

My point being is that if one is truly smart, they most likely appear to be too.

There's not much Utility in only seeming smart, anyways.

View more: Next