= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Nice Job!
Can you relate this to Parrondo's Paradox?
In response to
New Discussion section on LessWrong!
I assume this is being done because you can't figure out how to separate important topics with low votes from being overcrowded by less important topics with higher votes?
Imagine, giving up solid scientific ideas to interpretation by those who are not able to, or don't want to put an idea to the test.
Science doesn't vote, it tests, and if the new idea doesn't pass the test, then it is foot-noted and put aside.
Ah, so sad...
If it works, it works, if not it is just an idea of how things might work.
|No. Although a "LessWork" resume database would be cool.
It might be.
|Understanding all experience is beyond anyone's ability. That said, there's more to human experience than just traditional western employment (although that's fine as well).
I don't think that understanding all experience is beyond ability, we are the product of evolution, experience defines us....
""Maybe you are saying that you want some small form of participation without having to experience anything? ... Maybe you are saying that you have experienced everything within your physical and social reality and have to find some form of work to feed yourself?""
"Where is this coming from? You seem to think everyone interested in alternative employment is a hikikomori. While I'd be hard pressed not to think there's a substantial minority here with social problems (based on the AQ scores talked about some months ago, for example), nonetheless you go too far -- this literally is the mistake of thinking that because all A are B, all B are A!"
The classical representation is that if A=B then B=A
Of course this is just a simple relation.
A can be made of many parts; B can be made of many parts.
forgive me, I havn't got the whole making quotes thing....
As Will points out below, the use of first person is just for convenience. I'll take a stab at your questions, though:
Are you saying that you have the ability to understand all experience without having to participate in reality
Understanding all experience is beyond anyone's ability. That said, there's more to human experience than just traditional western employment (although that's fine as well).
are you saying that because you are young you want the easiest job you can find?
One could only hope that everyone, regardless of age, would want to be as productive as possible with as little effort as possible. This is efficiency. Efficiency is good.
Maybe you are saying that you want some small form of participation without having to experience anything? ... Maybe you are saying that you have experienced everything within your physical and social reality and have to find some form of work to feed yourself?
Where is this coming from? You seem to think everyone interested in alternative employment is a hikikomori. While I'd be hard pressed not to think there's a substantial minority here with social problems (based on the AQ scores talked about some months ago, for example), nonetheless you go too far -- this literally is the mistake of thinking that because all A are B, all B are A!
Also, the United States and many other countries are experiencing extreme unemployment and serious economic problems right now. It is utterly unsurprising that there's interest in finding other ways to make money in such an environment and says virtually nothing about any individual, except that they're not (yet?) extremely well-connected.
Is this supposed to be some new form of resume?
No. Although a "LessWork" resume database would be cool.
|No. Although a "LessWork" resume database would be cool.
It might be.
|Understanding all experience is beyond anyone's ability. That said, there's more to human experience than just traditional western employment (although that's fine as well).
I don't think that understanding all experience is beyond ability, we are the product of evolution, experience defines us....
In response to
(Virtual) Employment Open Thread
Are you saying that you have the ability to understand all experience without having to participate in reality, or, are you saying that because you are young you want the easiest job you can find?
Maybe you are saying that you want some small form of participation without having to experience anything?
Is this supposed to be some new form of resume?
Maybe you are saying that you have experienced everything within your physical and social reality and have to find some form of work to feed yourself?
?
The examples on www.patrickjmt.com might help.
Thanks, nice link.
I must say though that my example is mainly to illustrate the point of Implicit learning (breaking the code) being harder than explicit learning (being given a key).
I prefer breaking the code most times.
I guess the double entendre about Carlin was a bit to implicit... maybe just not funny...
:)
In response to
Humans are not automatically strategic
The calculus example is a good one for examining goal-achievement.
I am currently taking Calculus 2, Integration by Trigonometric Substitution is one of the methods.
The textbook I am using is very Implicit in examples explaining this method, and I have thought many times about how much easier it would be if it were to use more Explicit examples.
Implicit examples by nature take more time and effort than explicit examples, making the implicit less likely to be chosen than the explicit.
It would have to be one very highly motivated 8-year-old to pass the calculus test, or one that has an extremely high ability to understand implicit examples.
As far as the goals of a comedian, he/she would have to be very highly motivated and very good at implicit learning to gain anything from 'Garfield and Friends'.
Myself, I would choose George Carlin as an explicit example…
I don't know the why (I was familiar with it as a stand-alone inspirational quote.)
But for clarity's sake: I am a girl and Sarah is my name.
One can never assume, :)
My question of "why" relates to the idea that there have been so many examples of a rebellion against society (status quo) by groups and individuals.
Some of these examples are successful, most are not, but all seem to act to make "the great mass of humanity through time" change in a common direction.
It's almost as if we have been evolving (?), and each case of rebellion is a sudden mutation....
If only we could figure out what constitutes a successful mutation.
I really like that quote. Teddy Roosevelet speaking at the University of Paris in 1910. (thanks to Brin and Page)
Did you just find that through quotation of the day? Somebody needs to invent a 'relevant-quote' search where you can send it text and it spits out quotes that are relevant to the material.
SarahC used it in her (?) argument.
I want to know where and why it was said.
Thomas Paine wrote about atheism during a revolution, Martin Luther nailed his argument to a door of a church.
I voted you up for finding the where, but I still want to know the why.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Now that I've looked it up, I don't think it really has the same intuitions behind it as mixed strategy NE. But it does have an interesting connection with swings. If you try to push a heavy pendulum one way, you won't get very far. Trying the other way you'll also be out of luck. But if you push and pull alternately at the right frequency, you will obtain an impressive amplitude and height. Maybe it is because I've had firsthand experience with this that I don't find Parrondo's paradox all that puzzling.
From what you are saying, with the mixed strategy NE, I get that possible moves increase in relation to the complexity of the equilibrium, so that it becomes increasingly likely that any possible action could have an added emphasis that would cause a specific outcome as the equilibrium increases in complexity.
e.g.
What you are describing with the pendulum motion, the pendulum does not require additional effort in both directions to increase, only one direction, and the effort need be only the smallest (or smaller in addition) in relation to the period, and direction. An action to large in the same direction, or against the direction will destabilize it.
Isn't it true that the more precise the equilibrium, the less effort is required to destabilize it?
I think that the main difference between our arguments is that while you are talking of simultaneous action, I am talking of sequential action...