= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I'm fairly certain some good rationality drinking games could be thought up. Seriously, alcohol biases in predictable ways and it's both fun and informative to foreground that. (I'll try drinking vodka every day for a week some time soon, see if I can think of something. For science!)
In response to
We Don't Drink Vodka (LW Moscow report)
Well, liar's dice has optional rule: drink a cup of something if you lose.
In response to
We Don't Drink Vodka (LW Moscow report)
Nitpick: 10 rounds of the calibration and credence games isn't enough to conclude very much.
When we've done calibration exercises at our meetups (twice that I know of: once with Wits and Wagers questions, and once with properties of everyday objects), we went for 20-30 rounds, and we also did 50% and 90% confidence intervals for each round.
Have you tried prediction markets in any form? We are going to introduce it to our meetup group and use it as calibration practice.
In response to
We Don't Drink Vodka (LW Moscow report)
In game B you choose random number between 0 and 1, and you win if the random number will be more tha[n] your confidence interval (0,9, for example).
I don't quite understand that. What does it mean for a number to be larger than a confidence interval, and which confidence interval for what, anyway? Can you (or someone who understands it) explain game B and why preferring it means you're overconfident in a bit more detail?
Thank you for your notice, there were not very clear description, I have edited it. Here is description for the both games:
In game A you will receive a money prize if your statement is true, in other words if the correct number is between your upper and lower bounds.
In game B you generate random number between 0 and 1, and you win if the random is between zero and your credence (0.9, for example). I can say that you win with probability equals to your credence.
If you prefer game A, you may be underconfident; if you prefer game B, you may be overconfident.
If you are overconfident, you may have 90% credence for some interval, but after repeated tests of your estimation the value you estimated will fall into your interval only in 80% or 70% or 60% of tests. So you will likely choose game B, because it has a higher chance of a payoff.
If you are underconfident, you will likely assign 70% credence, but after tests you will get 90% or 80% hit ratio. In this case you will likely choose game A, for the same reason.
Have I answered your question?
In response to
We Don't Drink Vodka (LW Moscow report)
Good information here that might be "hidden" due to the cute article title. Consider adding a descriptive subtitle, or posting the exercises as their own article.
Thank you, I think current title will suffice.
Chapter 62:
Wasn't test to check Harry's Time turner too simple? Harry cheated very easy, he just used another person with Time turner. But this is grave matter, escape from Azkaban, and professors had chosen this kind of test...
In response to
Great rationality posts in the OB archives
I made an EPUB file from all these posts to read at my e-reader. If someone else is interested, you can download it here: Overcoming bias selected.epub
There were 8 people at the last session. I expect to see a slight increase next time.
Topics included:
- general introductions;
- conjunction fallacy and planning fallacy (discussing in 2 subgroups);
- anthropic trillemma / permutation city argument;
- organizational issues;
- discussion about how to expand our local presence, including one practical case of "how to touch on rationality topics at a dentist conference".
I'm not sure how representative this list is, it was my first LW meetup.
I hope me or someone else will post more detailed reports for future sessions.
Yes, that is correct. We are also going to post more detailed reports in Russian on Russian forum.
In response to
Meetup : Vancouver Metaethics and Really Trying
Please correct the link to the mailing list. Correct link is http://groups.google.com/group/vancouver-rationalists
In response to
[Link] Learning New Languages Helps The Brain Grow
Why do you think this research result would be of interest to Less Wrongers? No doubt, memorizing large numbers of false statements would also help your brain "become bigger and increase its activity", but this doesn't seem to be particularly helpful (besides maybe delaying the onset of degenerative diseases of the brain).
Note: I am currently learning both Japanese and Spanish in my spare time.
This article can be used as additional source of motivation for people, who are going to learn foreign language.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Can she visit Moscow? We have a lot to discuss with CFAR representative.