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

Comment author: ChristianKl 14 September 2017 09:46:42AM *  2 points [-]

The core of what LessWrong is about isn't studying social constructs. I would even say that a lot of the posts about social constructs are of lower quality than other LW posts. If I would show LW to someone who has never heard of it, I wouldn't take a post about social interaction.

* I wouldn't classify a post like http://lesswrong.com/lw/o6p/double_crux_a_strategy_for_resolving_disagreement/ as being about social constructs for the way I'm using the term here.

Comment author: dglukhov 14 September 2017 11:37:09AM *  1 point [-]

A lot of the sequences contain social constructs, or at least can have social impact for readers. The entirety of the book's subsections titled 'Fake Beliefs", "Mysterious Answers" or "Politics and Rationality" falls under social construct commentary.

If it helps, I'd define social constructs as topics relating to how humans communicate, and what is considered socially acceptable knowledge by certain demographics . What passes as knowledge according to rational traditions will lead one to accept or reject what is considered socially acceptable by others, and social construct commentary would be the act of commenting on such acceptance or rejection, defining what should be accepted or rejected. Rational study MUST include social commentary simply because we're stuck with human communication as the only form of transmission of ideas between others. Why is this relevant? Because how one communicates rational concepts can be considered socially unacceptable. And also because what is considered socially accepted in certain demographic areas can directly reject rational pursuits.

Unless of course you're ready to call the "Fake Beliefs" section low quality, I'd say social commentary is unavoidable when it comes to the study of AI or rational improvement of the mind. After all having vastly different ideas of what passes as reality for yourself can have lasting impacts on social cohesion with others if their maps differ from yours (unless you were a fantastic liar).

Comment author: dglukhov 14 September 2017 02:55:38AM *  1 point [-]

Any discussions on phenomena related to initial gut aversion to site content by casual readers? Almost every attempt at showing site content has been met with VEHEMENT resistance, I'm curious if this has been observed and noted here.

In fact, my initial experiences with sequences and site content in general began with aversion. Personal experience shows aversion to the obviousness of discussed topics yet incompatibility with topics related to obvious points (i.e science explaining away social constructs or concepts unrelated to pursuit of knowledge through research means.)

Typical aversions from other folk fall along these lines, where most would claim that studying social constructs in such a slow, bit-and-pieces way seems altogether pointless, and not at all in pace with the requirements of said social situation.

More discussion required.

Comment author: dglukhov 12 September 2017 07:10:16PM 0 points [-]

Is there a copy of Eliezer's book in russian? I'm having a hard time finding translations for this text.

Comment author: dglukhov 31 March 2017 07:37:33PM *  0 points [-]

Independent pharmacies don’t have the luxury of using mergers to offset the PBM power imbalance. In fact, when states proposed letting independents form their own pharmacy networks, the FTC argued against it, warning that it would “impair the ability of prescription drug plans to negotiate the best prices with pharmacies.”

When I read this it makes me question the legitimacy of the regulatory organization. It makes me couple this with the instance of 'bill mills' alleged to exist currently in both state and federal legislature.

EDIT: I say alleged because getting concrete documentation on the subject is suppressed.

Comment author: Lumifer 28 March 2017 05:56:12PM 1 point [-]

why was the claim that cars are a net positive not nearly as thoroughly scrutinized as my counterargument?

Because there is a significant prior to overcome. Whenever people get sufficiently wealthy, they start buying cars. Happened in the West, happened in China, Russia, India, etc. etc. Everywhere. And powers-that-be are fine with that. So to assert that cars are a net negative you need to assert that everyone is wrong.

Comment author: dglukhov 28 March 2017 06:10:09PM *  0 points [-]

Just out of curiosity, what is your stance on the impact of cars on climate change? And cars are too narrow, then what is your stance on fossil fuel consumptions and its impact on climate change?

You linked to parts of the debate I've never been exposed to, so I'm curious if there's more to know.

Comment author: Lumifer 28 March 2017 05:08:52PM *  1 point [-]

The general test is whether the claim is precise enough to be falsifiable -- is there an outcome (or a set of data, etc) which will unambiguously prove that claim to be wrong, with no wiggle room to back out?

And, by the way, IPCC reports are, of course, full of quantified claims like the one I mentioned. There might be concerns with data quality, model errors, overconfidence in the results, etc. etc, but the claims are well-quantified.

Comment author: dglukhov 28 March 2017 05:46:56PM *  0 points [-]

That is fair, so why was the claim that cars are a net positive not nearly as thoroughly scrutinized as my counterargument? I can't help but notice some favoritism here...

Was such an analysis done? Recently? Is this such common knowledge that nobody bothered to refute it?

Edit: my imagination only stretches so far as to see climate change being the only heavy counterargument to the virtue of cars. Anything else seems relatively minor, i.e deaths from motor accidents, etc.

Comment author: Lumifer 28 March 2017 04:38:17PM *  1 point [-]

Are you asking me to write out the interpretation of the evidence I see as a mathematical model

Not evidence. I want you to make a precise claim.

For example, "because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and because there's a lot more of it around than there used to be, that CO2 cascades into a warming event" is a not-quantified claim. It's not precise enough to be falsifiable (which is how a lot of people like it, but that's a tangent).

A quantified equivalent would be something along the lines of "We expect the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 300 to 400 ppmv to lead to the increase of the average global temperature by X degrees spread over the period of Z years so that we forecast the average temperature in the year YYYY as measured by a particular method M to be T with the standard error of E".

Note that this is all claim, no evidence (and not a model, either).

Comment author: dglukhov 28 March 2017 04:48:14PM 0 points [-]

Well, at this point I'd concede its not easy to make a claim with standards fit for such an example.

I'll see what I can do.

Comment author: Lumifer 28 March 2017 03:52:19PM *  1 point [-]

What other inferential steps does a person need to be shown to tell them that because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and because there's a lot more of it around than there used to be, that CO2 cascades into a warming event?

Look up a disagreement between two chaps, Svante Arrhenius and Knut Ångström :-)

Here is the argument against your position (there is a counter-argument to it, too):

water vapor, which is far more abundant in the air than carbon dioxide, also intercepts infrared radiation. In the infrared spectrum, the main bands where each gas blocked radiation overlapped one another. How could adding CO2 affect radiation in bands of the spectrum that H2O (not to mention CO2 itself) already made opaque?

.

The recent weather anomalies hitting earth imply the future is here.

Like the remarkable hurricane drought in the North America? Or are you going to actually argue that weather is climate?

so why not debate at the metalevel of the infrastructure

Sure, but it's a different debate.

Comment author: dglukhov 28 March 2017 04:42:20PM 0 points [-]

there is a counter-argument to it, too

What was his counter-argument? I can't read German.

Like the remarkable hurricane drought in the North America? Or are you going to actually argue that weather is climate?

Well clearly we need to establish a time range. Most sources for weather and temperature records I've seen span a couple of centuries. Is that not a range large enough to talk about climate instead of weather?

Sure, but it's a different debate.

Its a related debate, especially relevant if conclusions in the debate a metalevel lower are unenlightened.

Comment author: Lumifer 28 March 2017 04:13:31PM 1 point [-]

You wouldn't have claims to make before seeing the numbers in the first place.

LOL. Are you quite sure this is how humans work? :-)

You communicate this claim to another, they ask you why, you show them the numbers.

I want you to quantify the claim, not the evidence for the claim.

Comment author: dglukhov 28 March 2017 04:20:55PM 0 points [-]

LOL. Are you quite sure this is how humans work? :-)

They don't, that's something you train to do.

I want you to quantify the claim, not the evidence for the claim.

Why? Are you asking me to write out the interpretation of the evidence I see as a mathematical model instead of a sentence in English?

Comment author: Lumifer 28 March 2017 03:58:24PM *  1 point [-]

Putting data on the table to back up claims.

Turns out you don't know. The word means expressing your claims in numbers and, by itself, does not imply support by data.

Usually "quantifying" is tightly coupled to being precise about your claims.

Comment author: dglukhov 28 March 2017 04:05:53PM 0 points [-]

Turns out you don't know. The word means expressing your claims in numbers and, by itself, does not imply support by data.

Usually "quantifying" is tightly coupled to being precise about your claims.

I'm confused. You wouldn't have claims to make before seeing the numbers in the first place. You communicate this claim to another, they ask you why, you show them the numbers. That's the typical process of events I'm used to, how is it wrong?

View more: Next