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

Comment author: entirelyuseless 01 December 2016 01:48:35PM *  3 points [-]

I've waited to make this comment because I wanted to read this carefully a few times first, but it seems to me that the "crux" might not be doing a lot here, compared to simply getting people to actually think about and discuss an issue, instead of thinking about argument in terms of winning and losing. I'm not saying the double crux strategy doesn't work, but that it may work mainly because it gives the people something to work at other than winning and losing, and something that involves trying to understand the issues.

One thing that I have noticed working is this rule: say what is right about what the other person said before you criticize anything about it. And if you think there is nothing right about the content, at least say what you think is actually evidence for it. (If you think there is literally no evidence at all for it, then you basically think the other person is lying.) This can work pretty well even if only person is doing it, and I'm not sure that two people can consistently do it without arriving at least at a significant amount of agreement.

Comment author: atucker 01 December 2016 02:31:23PM 1 point [-]

I think that crux is doing a lot of work in that it forces the conversation to be about something more specific than the main topic, and because it makes it harder to move the goal posts partway through the conversation. If you're not talking about a crux then you can write off a consideration as "not really the main thing" after talking about it.

Comment author: Error 27 November 2016 04:20:37PM 7 points [-]

Strong writers enjoy their independence.

This is, I think, the largest social obstacle to reconstitution. Crossposting blog posts from the diaspora is a decent workaround, though -- if more than a few can be convinced to do it.

Comment author: atucker 27 November 2016 11:50:03PM 3 points [-]

"Strong LW diaspora writers" is a small enough group that it should be straightforward to ask them what they think about all of this.

Comment author: Mollie 14 November 2014 07:27:11PM 2 points [-]

To clarify, this meet-up is not at MIT, even though it's the third Sunday?

Comment author: atucker 16 November 2014 06:25:30PM 1 point [-]

Yes. This meetup is at the citadel.

Comment author: owencb 17 October 2014 11:16:11AM 4 points [-]

It seems like you're gesturing in a similar direction to Big History. I wonder if you'd like to highlight what you see as the distinctions?

Comment author: atucker 17 October 2014 08:02:35PM 4 points [-]

My impression is that the OP says that history is valuable and deep without needing to go back as far as the big bang -- that there's a lot of insight in connecting the threads of different regional histories in order to gain an understanding of how human society works, without needing to go back even further.

Comment author: atucker 03 August 2014 06:22:12AM *  7 points [-]

The second and most already-implemented way is to jump outside the system and change the game to a non-doomed one. If people can't share the commons without defecting, why not portion it up into private property? Or institute government regulations? Or iterate the game to favor tit-for-tat strategies? Each of these changes has costs, but if the wage of the current game is 'doom,' each player has an incentive to change the game.

This is cooperation. The hard part is in jumping out, and getting the other person to change games with you, not in whether or not better games to play exist.

Moloch has discovered reciprocal altruism since iterated prisoner's dilemmas are a pretty common feature of the environment, but because Moloch creates adaptation-executors rather than utility maximizers, we fail to cooperate across social, spatial, and temporal distance, even if the payoff matrix stays the same.

Even if you have an incentive to switch, you need to notice the incentive before it can get you to change your mind. Since many switches require all the players to cooperate and switch at the same time, it's unlikely that groups will accidentally start playing the better game.

Convincing people that the other game is indeed better is hard when evaluating incentives is difficult. Add too much complexity and it's easy to imagine that you're hiding something. This is hard to get past since moving past it requires trust, in a context where we maybe are correct to distrust people -- i.e. if only lawyers know enough law to write contracts, they should probably add loopholes that lawyers can find, or at least make it complicated enough that only lawyers can understand it, so that you need to continue to hire lawyers to use your contracts. In fact contracts are generally complicated and full of loopholes and basically require lawyers to deal with.

Also, most people don't know about Nash equilibria, economics, game theory, etc., and it would be nice to be able to do things in a world with sub-utopian levels of understanding incentives. Also, trying to explain game theory to people as a substep of getting them to switch to another game runs into the same kind of justified mistrust as the lawyer example -- if they don't know game theory and you're saying that game theory says you're right, and evaluating arguments is costly and noisy, and they don't trust you at the start of the interaction, it's reasonable to distrust you even after the explanation, and not switch games.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 07 June 2014 12:25:22PM 1 point [-]

Interesting. I didn't know about the x4 limitation. As that puts a natural limit on the downvoting I do not see any problem in principle with the 'mass' downvoting. If you do not have the freedom to actually spend your karma on (mass) downvotes, then the problem is not the downvoting but the limit.

The limit ensures that you downvotes need to be compensated by correspondingly valued contributions. If more people exercised their downvoting share this 'mass downvoting' wouldn't even have been noticable.

The problem may be that it is applied to individuals. But even though that can be perceived as unfair it is still strictly the choice available to the voter (not much different that voting on the popularity of people instead of comments which is seldom nowadays instead of in popularity (up)votes.

My proposal would be to either a) reduce the limit to x2 or b) change the limit to x1 ''per person'' (if that is possible easily).

This is conditional on attackers not artificially accumulating karma by upvoting themselves (via multiple accounts). Such self-voting can in principle be either detected or prevented by network flow algorithms like Advogato's ( http://www.advogato.org/trust-metric.html ) but that requires significant changes to the karma logic.

Note: I'm not afiliated with Advogato but I'd really like to see the basic principle (the network flow) be applied more to voting algorithms in general.

Comment author: atucker 07 June 2014 06:35:04PM 1 point [-]

I tend to think of downvoting as a mechanism to signal and filter low-quality content rather than as a mechanism to 'spend karma' on some goal or another. It seems that mass downvoting doesn't really fit the goal of filtering content -- it just lets you know that someone is either trolling LW in general, or just really doesn't like someone in a way that they aren't articulating in a PM or response to a comment/article.

Comment author: chrt 07 June 2014 04:53:21PM *  4 points [-]

Expected value (it tells you not to play slot machines)

Casinos are apparently still making money, so I question the extent to which this has been adopted by the Masses.

Comment author: atucker 07 June 2014 05:36:57PM 4 points [-]

That just means that the sanity waterline isn't high enough that casinos have no customers -- it could be the case that there used to be lots of people who went to casinos, and the waterline has been rising, and now there are fewer people who do.

Comment author: atucker 26 March 2014 02:43:55AM *  18 points [-]

End of life treatment.

Extending the literally worst part of most people's lives for as long as you can, to the tune of over 20% of medical spending in the US.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 18 March 2014 02:16:06PM 4 points [-]

The presence of an object (or even my own finger) near the center of my forehead causes a tingling sensation, which can even shift directions (but still, always centered on my forehead) as the object moves.

Comment author: atucker 18 March 2014 03:37:12PM -1 points [-]

I have the same, though it seems to be stronger when the finger is right in front of my nose. It always stops if the finger touches me.

In response to Fascists and Rakes
Comment author: atucker 05 January 2014 10:53:49PM 7 points [-]

Hobbes uses a similar argument in Leviathan -- people are inclined towards not starting fights unless threatened, but if people feel threatened they will start fights. But people disagree about what is and isn't threatening, and so (Hobbes argues) there needs to be a fixed set of definitions that all of society uses in order to avoid conflict.

View more: Next