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

Comment author: LessWrong 02 June 2017 07:48:09PM 1 point [-]

I've tried GEB. Contrary to what a lot of people feel about it, I did not particularly enjoy the book. I didn't finish it, so perhaps I didn't see the grand finale. My assumptions are that GEB was the first time a lot of fans found out about the concepts described in the book, and therefore they like it because of that. From a reductionalist viewpoint, I still haven't found an adequate answer for "What does GEB have that I can't find anywhere else?". Or perhaps, "if we take n amount of people, one group aware of the concepts in GEB and another unaware of it, assuming neither of them read the book, how much would their final rating differ?".

Comment author: Zubon 05 June 2017 02:02:39AM 1 point [-]

And then I scroll down and find this, the perfect example of your question about books that can be initially amazing but not great upon re-read or reflection. If you are not familiar with the ideas in GEB, it can be an amazing introduction that opens new horizons. Or it can be too clever for its own good, getting in the way of delivering its own content.

Comment author: LessWrong 02 June 2017 07:55:48PM *  1 point [-]

Meta post:

How often does it happen that:

  1. You're reading a book, and it's not particularly interesting, or there's nothing new in it, and you put it down;

  2. You read a book, and after n amount of (days, months, years) you felt that it wasn't as good as you felt it was when reading it.

I've recently felt a "yeah, cool" feeling about books I'm reading and am curious if it happens to other people.

Comment author: Zubon 05 June 2017 02:00:09AM 0 points [-]

Frequently to both.

For fiction that I re-read and find it not as good the second time, I suspect the newness of it was the driving force in my initial assessment. Permutation City was life-changing for me, but going back after having more transhumanism in my diet, I don't know that it is even my favorite Greg Egan book.

There are other times where I have that feeling without even needing to re-read. "Upon reflection, I enjoyed that a lot at the time, but there is not a lot of there there."

Comment author: cousin_it 16 May 2017 04:32:25PM *  2 points [-]

There's a free market idea that the market rewards those who provide value to society. I think I've found a simple counterexample.

Imagine a loaf of bread is worth 1 dollar to consumers. If you make 100 loaves and sell them for 99 cents each, you've provided 1 dollar of value to society, but made 99 dollars for yourself. If you make 100 loaves and give them away to those who can't afford it, you've provided 100 dollars of value to society, but made zero for yourself. Since the relationship is inverted, we see that the market doesn't reward those who provide value. Instead it rewards those who provide value to those who provide value! It's recursive, like PageRank!

That's the main reason why we have so much inequality. Recursive systems will have attractors that concentrate stuff. That's also why you can't blame people for having no jobs. They are willing to provide value, but they can't survive by providing to non-providers, and only the best can provide to providers.

Comment author: Zubon 17 May 2017 11:35:02AM 0 points [-]

You should be very surprised if you think you have found a new counterexample to a centuries-old discipline that comes from a millennia-old example. Odds are there is an existing literature addressing exactly that question.

Comment author: Dagon 08 March 2017 07:27:54PM *  4 points [-]

Any references or studies behind this? My intuition (for which I know of no studies, so is just another option from yours) is different: most people are unwilling and/or unable to do the work of science/engineering - they are drawn to "do what I want" solutions rather than "do what I very precisely describe" solutions.

It's not about internal capabilities vs external tools. It's about what level of understanding and attention-to-detail is required to use it.

Comment author: Zubon 11 March 2017 06:16:22PM 1 point [-]

I concur on "do what I want" as the distinction. Magic is teleological: it produces a certain effect, whereas science is about the cause. Magic "just works." You do not need to know how the magic words produce light or fire, they just do. The great usual magical dream is about having massive power under your control, not whether you are the direct cause. Wishes are the archetypal example. You wish for something and it happens. Done. A genie is neither you nor a tool you control, just a massive source of power bound to your wishes.

Magical horror stories are about wishing for effects and either not liking the cause or not specifying the effect properly, like the evil genie or the monkey's paw. Science horror stories are about starting a cause without realizing its effects.

There are plenty of science-like magical stories, where they delve into the rules of magic and effects from causes. And don't those read a lot more like science fiction, whereas a space opera like Star Wars has the trappings of science fiction but Jedi are just space wizards that produce effects by willing them.

Comment author: AlexMennen 12 November 2016 04:40:33AM 1 point [-]

Technically true, but ultimately, it doesn't provide all that much new evidence about polling. The polling error was not abnormally large.

Comment author: Zubon 13 November 2016 02:28:52PM 3 points [-]

And the direction of the error was known and stated in advance by informed interpreters (538). A fair number of Trump voters would not have been considered "likely" voters based on past non-voting, and that was a systematic bias in the polling estimate rather than something that would affect a few states independently. Pollsters tended to stick with their "likely" filter rather than change it on the assumption that these voters would turn out and vote. They turned out and voted.

I seem to recall seeing Trump doing better in polls of registered voters versus likely voters, but I cannot say I have strong evidence for that and it might have just been comparing a few surveys. Most polls seem to have been of likely voters.

Comment author: Zubon 06 August 2016 05:12:52PM 0 points [-]

Setting up at the blue Fantasy Flight tables, by the X-Wing Miniatures banner, in front of the HQ table, just before the banner showing the switch to Asmodee.

Comment author: Zubon 06 August 2016 05:32:31PM 0 points [-]

Between Halls B and E, nearish giant Pikachu

Comment author: Zubon 16 July 2016 06:36:10PM 0 points [-]

Default location is in the card game area, specific location to be found at the time (and then posted here). There are always open tables. I would plan on near-ish the exhibit hall exit, but I have not seen how the layout may have changed this year.

There is also the official open gaming space, but that is $4/person.

We could also take discussion to a restaurant, or start at the Convention Center and wander off for food if we run that long.

Comment author: Zubon 06 August 2016 05:12:52PM 0 points [-]

Setting up at the blue Fantasy Flight tables, by the X-Wing Miniatures banner, in front of the HQ table, just before the banner showing the switch to Asmodee.

Comment author: Zubon 16 July 2016 06:36:10PM 0 points [-]

Default location is in the card game area, specific location to be found at the time (and then posted here). There are always open tables. I would plan on near-ish the exhibit hall exit, but I have not seen how the layout may have changed this year.

There is also the official open gaming space, but that is $4/person.

We could also take discussion to a restaurant, or start at the Convention Center and wander off for food if we run that long.

Comment author: Zubon 06 August 2016 02:04:48AM *  0 points [-]

If you have spotted a good/better location at the con, suggestions are still open. Otherwise, I will be updating on-site when I arrive on Saturday.

Comment author: Zubon 16 July 2016 06:36:10PM 0 points [-]

Default location is in the card game area, specific location to be found at the time (and then posted here). There are always open tables. I would plan on near-ish the exhibit hall exit, but I have not seen how the layout may have changed this year.

There is also the official open gaming space, but that is $4/person.

We could also take discussion to a restaurant, or start at the Convention Center and wander off for food if we run that long.

Meetup : Gen Con: Applied Game Theory

0 Zubon 13 July 2016 09:11PM

Discussion article for the meetup : Gen Con: Applied Game Theory

WHEN: 06 August 2016 02:00:00PM (-0400)

WHERE: 100 S Capitol Ave, Indianapolis, IN 46225, USA

Time tentative, location to be worked out. If you are attending Gen Con and want to meet up with rationalists, please comment if you have a preferred time and location. Posting this now to get it on the calendar and solicit responses. Default location is in the card game area, specific location to be found at the time (and then posted here). UPDATE: setting up at the blue Fantasy Flight tables, by the X-Wing Miniatures banner, in front of the HQ table, just before the banner showing the switch to Asmodee.

Meet up with Less Wrong friends and play games! Learn the newest releases, play classics, and otherwise have fun. A purely social event, running for as long as people want to stay and play, with potential continued discussion over dinner.

As at all events, there is no minimum degree, IQ, reading record, height, age, or neurotypicality to participate. Bring games if you like, learn new games if you like, and expect a range from "I am here for the championships" to "what are we Settling?"

We seemed like the kind of nerds who might go to Gen Con. You can also use the comments here to find others attending, arrange other connections at the event, discuss the con, etc.

Discussion article for the meetup : Gen Con: Applied Game Theory

View more: Next