In response to Value evolution
Comment author: drc500free 12 December 2011 09:42:11PM *  0 points [-]

I think there are two steps to morality engineering, either of which can fail:

  1. Develop an ethical code through deliberate reflection, that is better than existing values.
  2. Bind that code into the active moral code.

You say neither has happened; I disagree on both, but I'll limit this post to the second question on "binding." I use the following definitions - they may not be correct or universal, but they should be internally consistent:

  • Value System: A collection of memes to do with decision-making, which provide better overall utility than innate responses.
  • Moral Code: An individual's value system that drives day-to-day decision making through emotional response.
  • Ethical Code: A value system derived from deliberate study ("Ethics").

Evolution of Morality

Let's take as a given that emotions drive behavior, and an emotion-driven response will always trump an analytic response. Let's take evolutionary psychology and memetics as a given, and posit that human evolution is largely memetic at this point, with genetic evolution driven largely by ability to host memes.

We'll go one step further and say that a key trait of modern humanity is the ability to give a meme access to our emotional centers. This is the basis of morality - a learned rule triggers an emotional response to counter or modify our innate "animal" emotional response, modifying behavior. Most likely brains that allow acquired memes to trigger strong emotions co-evolved with memes that help us survive in tribes. This is an "evolution-of-evolution" event. instead of a lever on

phenotypes like modularity or a lever on recombination like sex, we evolved a lever on learned thought patterns by allowing them to tap directly into our emotional core.

We survive now based on the quality of our meme sets, and the best surviving memes tend to include a trigger and strong emotional response. This unlocks an evolutionary path tens of thousands of times faster than genetics, and allows horizontal transfer within a generation. Within this framework, morality memes evolve individually (Fire is comforting, not scary), then in colonies (also, this is how to make new fire and keep old fire burning), and finally into "memetic organisms" - proto-religions and proto-cultures. These are messy and include memes that only make sense in the context of others, but their defining feature is that they tie in to the emotional core.

Leaning on some en vogue evolutionary theories, a meme that is fashionable can become hard-wired. If you need to do it anyway, and it's related to sexual selection, hard-wiring it may free up mental resources for more complicated memes. At the extreme, entirely new emotions may be developed (e.g. shame or embarassment).

Ethical Transplants

Engineering an ethical code - whether its for Attorneys or Humanists - doesn't guarantee that anyone will follow it. Following the code in the face of innate or moral emotion requires an emotional hook. There are two major emotional pathways an ethical code can follow, and they're both indirect. There can be an external enforcer - God, the Police, the Bar Association, or Santa Clause - which followers fear. There can be an internal hook within the moral code which says "it is moral to follow applicable ethical codes." Both approaches are weak and indirect compared to an innate emotional reaction.

Religion

Binding an ethical rule to an emotional response results in a moral tenet that will actually be followed. We can call the beliefs, rites, and rituals that bind and activate the tenet religion, we can call the strength of that binding morality (these aren't the precise meanings of those words, but they are familiar and relevant). Religions are selected for their morality and the extent to which they promote survivability (in some ethical systems that's the same as being ethical, YMMV). They include not only the values-memes themselves, but the layers of memes that bind them.

Conclusion

Ethically-derived values don't work without emotions, because we act on emotions and rationalize after. Repeated and emotional rituals (religions) instantiate morality by binding ethical tenets to emotional responses. Once you know this, you can engineer a religion just like any other virus:

  1. Lay out your ethically-derived values.
  2. Add values for maintaining your religion/beliefs and passing to others.
  3. Collect existing rites, rituals, stories, and beliefs that bind value to emotions, and develop new ones if needed.
  4. Compress and self-reference as much as possible to reduce package size.

Like any other bio-engineering, you lose some control once you release it, and your engineered religion is going into combat with all others.

Comment author: saturn 02 November 2011 12:30:13AM *  10 points [-]

Here's one that closely imitates Raven's Progressive Matrices and claims to have been calibrated with a sample of 250,000 people: http://www.iqtest.dk/

Here's another one: http://sifter.org/iqtest/ . I can't find any mention of where the questions came from or how it's calibrated, but it's shorter and doesn't require Flash.

Neither one asks for an e-mail address or any identifying information. They might be too easy for some on LW, but harder ones tend to cost money. As Viliam_Bur pointed out, any free online test's validity is questionable, but the first one is basically a direct copy of a "real" test, and neither one has any apparent ulterior motive. Anecdotally, they were both within 10 points of each other and my "real" score.

Comment author: drc500free 11 November 2011 02:56:03PM 0 points [-]

Some data points: IQ (age 7, 14, 20) = ~145-150 S-B SAT (age 16) - 1590 = ~150 S-B iqtest.dk (age 29) = 133 S-B sifter.org/iqtest (age 29) = 139 S-B (159 euro scale)

I don't use my spacial skills in my daily work they way I used to use them in my daily school work, and both online tests seem to measure only that.

I found the second test much more difficult - there wasn't enough information to derive the exact missing item, so you had to choose things that could be explained with the simplest/least rules. There were some where I disagreed that the correct answer had a simpler rule-set. The problem style is also highly learnable, and I question the diagnostic value of "figuring out" that you're looking at a 3x3 matrix where operations occur as you move around it, but various cells have been obscured to make the problem harder. Not including instructions makes it feel like there's a secret handshake to get in.

Comment author: bbleeker 03 November 2011 01:27:47PM *  0 points [-]

I agree! I too, think that there is such a thing as morality, but I'm not sure how to define it, and I don't agree with any of the options.

Comment author: drc500free 11 November 2011 02:21:09PM 0 points [-]

That's how I felt. There is such thing as a personal moral code or system, and we can examine what happens to groups of people who are running various types and mixtures. We can try to determine which moral memes have the best outcomes, and are most likely to spread and be executed closely, and we can try to follow those codes.

Maybe that's pragmatic ethics, but the way morality is used in the survey implies that I'd believe in a single correct way of executing morality at the individual, day-to-day level. It's like asking whether I believe in being a carnivore, an herbivore, or a plant. The option "other" option is "morality doesn't exist," which is a bit like are you a) christian, b) jewish, c) muslim, or d) religion doesn't exist.

Comment author: fiddlemath 12 October 2011 02:34:46PM *  1 point [-]

To clarify - in the US, FICA (Social Security + Medicare) charged a %7.65 "employer contribution" that was not counted in your stated wage, as well as a %7.65 "employee contribution" that was counted in your stated wage.

See also: wikipedia

If you earn money as "self-employed", which I did for a few years, then you get to pay both.

Comment author: drc500free 24 October 2011 12:41:07AM 1 point [-]

Right-o. This can make it very confusing to compare wages between countries.

The actual cost to the employer, assuming they are providing no benefits, is your stated wage plus 7.65% for most income levels. The amount the employee gets is the employer cost, minus 7.65% (down to the stated wage), minus another 7.65% (the employee contribution), minus any local, state, and federal income taxes.

The tax band you are in is based on your adjusted gross income, but everyone gets to knock at least $5800 off for the standard deduction so it's not even your stated wage.

Comment author: pedanterrific 28 September 2011 04:35:55PM 2 points [-]

Whaa? How do you even manage to get signed up for conflicting classes- is MIT's registration system set up such that it allows you to do that?

Comment author: drc500free 02 October 2011 07:45:45PM 2 points [-]

In general, MIT's registration policies are "we'll provide the rope, try not to hang yourself." On the flip side, it's nearly impossible to fail out.

Comment author: Benquo 02 October 2011 04:45:41PM 3 points [-]

Easy for you? Do you think your experience was typical?

Comment author: drc500free 02 October 2011 07:39:27PM 4 points [-]

Easy enough that it can't really distinguish 2 SDs from 3 SDs at the top end.

Though it's possible that it's already an SD above the population mean to begin with since it's only college grads. I don't think these researchers are looking for a very precise cutoff.

Comment author: drc500free 14 August 2011 09:04:15AM 2 points [-]

It is a good start, and it's becoming more critical as normal people have to sift through more and more orphaned factoids each day. When I was going through school, the most important question to ask was supposed to be "Why?" It's becoming more apparent to me that a more useful question to teach students is "How do you know?"

That can be covered in some depth in an IB class, but just being in the habit of asking that from the age of 5 is going to do more good than a structured curriculum once you're 16.

In response to Optimal Employment
Comment author: k3nt 03 February 2011 12:37:30AM *  9 points [-]

"-7.65% of your income into Social Security good luck getting that back"

The "Social Security will be eliminated before you collect any benefits" line is one of the great myths of USA politics. It's being intentionally propagated by one political party (hint: the one that voted against SS and has been fighting against it ever since.) SS's finances are in fine shape and the program can continue with minimal or no modification for many years to come.

Your link goes to a very brief piece arguing that most people don't think they will get Social Security benefits. Which is true! People have been told this so often they are starting to believei it! But that is a very different question from whether folks will actually get Social Security benefits.

Anyway I know this is only orthogonal to your main point, but I had to object. Spreading misinformation doesn't belong on a rationality blog.

In response to comment by k3nt on Optimal Employment
Comment author: drc500free 05 February 2011 10:50:52PM 2 points [-]

I also don't understand why the social security is counted as a negative percentage, and the retirement is counted as positive. If you subtract social security, you're counting your salary without that retirement contribution. If you add superannuation, you're counting your salary plus a retirement contribution. You can do one or the other, but not both.

There's also the simple fact that if a 9% contribution is mandatory, your stated wage will be 8% less to cover it. Just like your stated wage with social security is 7% less to cover the employer's contribution.

Comment author: jimrandomh 06 January 2011 10:36:59PM 8 points [-]

Professionals aren't allowed to optimize for their patient's intelligence and productivity, they're only allowed to prescribe medicines to treat the conditions listed in the DSM, which, sadly, does not recognize the lack of superhuman productivity as a disease.

Comment author: drc500free 07 January 2011 02:30:57PM *  2 points [-]

Believe me, I know that high intelligence can skew a professional's diagnosis. But the underlying disorder is still the same and still treatable with essentially the same methods. You have to shop around a bit anyway to find someone you can work with, and even more so if you are high functioning and cope well.

There's no reason you can't do things traditionally as a baseline, and then decide how to proceed; mania is a terrible place to make a decision from.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 06 January 2011 04:19:58PM 3 points [-]

Motivation: I'm trying to figure out how my brain works. I definitely have bipolar tendencies (and genetic reasons to suspect so) and schizoid personality disorder, along with scoring rather highly on autism/Asperger's quizzes. I have a tendency to take more ideas more seriously than most, which I suspect for completely unrelated reasons has to do with increased neuronal excitability. I also seem to have rather high neural plasticity (I learn quickly in varied domains, update ontologies quickly, update beliefs quickly, et cetera) though it's possible that such plasticity is not abnormal among those of roughly my age and fluid intelligence. These factors led me to find the dysfunctional sodium pump hypothesis to be reasonably likely, at least in my case, but it saddens me that I don't seem to be able to easily construct a model out of the hints that Wikipedia is giving me.

Ultimately I think my intellectual productivity (and quality of life, happiness level, interestingness, et cetera) is better when I'm manic and I'd like to take advantage of that, but I feel obligated to see how Algernon's principle applies and if trying to be always-manic-schizo would significantly increase my risk of actual schizophrenia or something else bad like increased neurotoxins due to purposefully messed up sodium pump activity patterns or something unanticipated.

Comment author: drc500free 06 January 2011 09:30:24PM 2 points [-]

I may be reading between the lines too much, but I get the sense that you're not diagnosed by a psychiatrist, or undergoing treatment. If that's the case, this might not be the exact area to try to outdo the professionals.

View more: Prev | Next