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

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 14 July 2011 08:16:27AM 7 points [-]

It's a tempting hypothesis, but I've heard enough complaints about volunteers from organizations that don't do that sort of test that I don't think the test is a crucial factor.

Identifying conscientious people seems to be a hard problem. Do you have suggestions about how it can be done?

Comment author: brazil84 02 January 2016 01:49:54PM 1 point [-]

I posted to this thread basically to add my complaint. I am involved with a not-for-profit and there is a huge problem with people who enthusiastically volunteer but end up doing little or nothing of value for the organization.

So yeah, I don't think it's that people find opportunities elsewhere or that people resent make-work.

Here's a thought experiment: Suppose that Givewell continues to test volunteers, but instead of something boring and tedious, the "test" is something fun and interesting. But still it is admittedly make-work. I predict that the percentage of applicants who complete the test will rise dramatically.

Comment author: Sergej_Shegurin 21 December 2015 03:14:48PM 1 point [-]

We all know that human pregnancy doesn't scale. We all know that some other problems do scale. So I really don't understand those 18 points to the comment. One can always think up many different analogies leading to different conclusions. Even if we ignore scaling issue, sigma of duration of pregnancy is smth like a week perhaps. However other processes like creative thinking or inventing new ideas might have sigma comparable to mean.

Comment author: brazil84 21 December 2015 05:50:50PM 1 point [-]

We all know that human pregnancy doesn't scale. We all know that some other problems do scale

I'm not sure what you mean by "scale." When you say that some problems "do scale," I assume you mean that there are tasks where if you double the resources thrown at them, the amount of time to complete the task will be cut in half.

If you look at large, complicated projects involving new technologies, there seem to be at least several aspects to the project: First, the creative brilliant thinking; second, actual construction, manufacturing, and assembly; and third, the small and large failures which occur along the way, which require rethinking, redesigning, and re-manufacturing various components and concepts.

It is this third aspect which concerns me. Because it appears to be an iterative process which will suck down a minimum amount of time no matter how clever you are and no matter how much resources you throw at a problem.

Not only that, there is also the problem of coordination and communication. Common sense says that this will result in diminishing returns.

Of course nobody knows just what's involved in creating practical immortality, but I think it's reasonable to hypothesize that for the above reasons it will necessarily require a good deal more than 20 years no matter how much of a priority it is.

So I really don't understand those 18 points to the comment.

Probably people thought it was cool that I made reference to The Mythical Man Month.

However other processes like creative thinking or inventing new ideas might have sigma comparable to mean.

If it were just creative thinking or inventing new ideas, I would be inclined to agree. But there is still the iterative process of engineering, building, testing, revising, etc. And there's a lot that can go wrong with a human body so presumably there are a lot of problems to solve.

Comment author: brazil84 13 December 2015 08:39:43PM 17 points [-]

How many women would it take to carry a human baby from conception to viable birth in 1 month?

Comment author: Elo 10 December 2015 09:35:41PM -2 points [-]

I'm gonna tap out of this. I would suggest re-reading that evidence. Especially that paper and the conclusion of that paper where it doesn't actually say that.

It says things like this:

Other people’s taking notice of one’s identity-relevant intentions apparently engenders a premature sense of completeness regarding the identity goal.

An identity-relevant intention is potentially different to a goal or a plan. To make the most use of this research it would be wise to identify the difference and make use of the right mechanisms.

Good luck with your future in the goal-space.

Comment author: brazil84 10 December 2015 09:56:00PM -2 points [-]

I'm gonna tap out of this. I would suggest re-reading that evidence. Especially that paper and the conclusion of that paper where it doesn't actually say that.

Doesn't actually say what? Never mind, because it seems you don't have a clear understanding of what you are talking about.

An identity-relevant intention is potentially different to a goal or a plan

Then perhaps your evidence is irrelevant to both your position and mine. If so, it's your problem not mine. Because it wouldn't change the fact that all of the evidence supports my position and you haven't cited any evidence to support your own.

Good luck with your future in the goal-space.

Thanks you too.

Comment author: Elo 10 December 2015 10:07:05AM 0 points [-]

(as in bold above) How might we make (or ensure) goal sharing (is) mostly good and mostly not bad?

Comment author: brazil84 10 December 2015 03:41:45PM 0 points [-]

as in bold above) How might we make (or ensure) goal sharing (is) mostly good and mostly not bad?

Ok, but that's a different issue. My position is that generally speaking, goal-sharing is counterproductive. Your position is that generally speaking, goal sharing is beneficial and productive. The evidence supports my position. You have offered no evidence to support your position and instead you have attempted to change the subject.

Comment author: Elo 10 December 2015 03:29:23AM 0 points [-]

the question which requires "future research"

is a line from the conclusion of that paper.

I suspect the "mostly good or mostly bad?" will come down to subjective experience. So that's a pretty ordinary question to be trying to obtain future research for. In which case - the important question is - How might we make (or ensure) goal sharing (is) mostly good and mostly not bad? (or always good)

Comment author: brazil84 10 December 2015 08:30:24AM *  0 points [-]

is a line from the conclusion of that paper.

Umm, does that mean "yes" or "no"?

Please just state the question which requires "future research" so that I can understand what you are saying.

Comment author: ChristianKl 10 December 2015 01:30:47AM *  0 points [-]

I didn't say any such thing. Please read what I say carefully before responding.

I already said that I might have misunderstood you. You suggested that further explanation is helpful. What do you expect to gain from another answer?

Comment author: brazil84 10 December 2015 02:50:58AM 1 point [-]

I already said that I might have misunderstood you. You suggested that further explanation is helpful. What do you expect to gain for another answer

I'm trying to understand YOUR point now. Regardless of whether you misunderstood me, you said something and I am trying to understand it.

Here's what you said:

If it's in your morality to pratice charitable reading at the cost of human lives, feel free to live with that moral decision.

So you were talking about someone practicing charitable reading at the cost of human lives. When I stated that I did not understand your point, you said this:

The critical media reaction to Zuckerberg announcement likely cost more lives through reduced donations than lifes were lost in Paris during the recent attacks.

So apparently your point is that the media (or some part of the media) "practiced charitable reading" which cost human lives.

So how exactly did the media "practice charitable reading"? It's not a very complicated question.

Comment author: ChristianKl 10 December 2015 12:15:30AM 0 points [-]

Well what did you think I was saying?

That it's right of the media to say that Zuckerberg made the donation to increase his own reputation and status.

Comment author: brazil84 10 December 2015 01:11:32AM 1 point [-]

That it's right of the media to say that Zuckerberg made the donation to increase his own reputation and status.

I didn't say any such thing. Please read what I say carefully before responding.

And please answer my other question:

In what way did the media "practice charitable reading"?

Comment author: Elo 09 December 2015 11:01:18PM *  0 points [-]

Given that the effect is limited to committed individuals—those who are most eager to reach their identity goals—an important question is how these individuals might try to escape this effect.

and

Given that:
sometimes goal sharing will be bad
sometimes goal sharing will be good

is goal sharing mostly good or mostly bad?

Comment author: brazil84 10 December 2015 12:11:18AM 0 points [-]

is goal sharing mostly good or mostly bad?

So this is the question which requires "future research" according to you?

Comment author: ChristianKl 09 December 2015 10:50:49PM 0 points [-]

I'm not sure what your point is here but it sounds like you agree with me.

If I misunderstood you and we agree that's great.

I have no idea what your point is here.

The critical media reaction to Zuckerberg announcement likely cost more lives through reduced donations than lifes were lost in Paris during the recent attacks.

Comment author: brazil84 09 December 2015 11:58:24PM 1 point [-]

If I misunderstood you and we agree that's great.

Well what did you think I was saying?

The critical media reaction to Zuckerberg announcement likely cost more lives through reduced donations than lifes were lost in Paris during the recent attacks.

And in what way did the media "practice charitable reading"?

View more: Next