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

Comment author: Lumifer 01 September 2015 07:53:49PM 0 points [-]

Calibration error. It's still a low-status signal, there are just other high-status signals embedded in the sentence

No, I don't think so. The thing is, many status signals flip the sign depending on whether you're low-signaling-medium or high-signaling-veryhigh. A usual (though maybe a bit outdated) example is a Blackberry: if you're a low-level office drone, possession of a Blackberry signifies high(er) status. But if you're a captain of industry, you won't carry a Blackberry because you have minions for that.

With buying sex it's a bit more complicated because you have culture/religion messing up the status messages. But let's look at the margins: does a high-roller in Vegas lower his status by ordering girls to his room? I don't think so. And, of course, culture/context matters a lot: what's fine for a hip-hop mogul would be unthinkable for a Boston brahmin.

Comment author: gjm 01 September 2015 08:58:11PM 0 points [-]

Is it really a matter of sign-flipping, or is it just that the same status level can seem low or high depending on what you're comparing with? If a Blackberry signifies (or signified) middle-to-senior-manager status, then it's a high-status signal for a minion and a low-status signal for the big-company CEO. If inviting six hookers up to your room in Las Vegas signifies not-very-classy-high-roller status, then again it's a high-status or low-status signal depending on the starting point. Nothing needs to flip; it's the same status in either case; but the reference point (set by other characteristics of the person or situation) can be lower or higher.

Comment author: gjm 01 September 2015 08:47:56PM 2 points [-]

(From Singularity Summit 2009; uploaded to YouTube in February 2012.)

In response to Deworming a movement
Comment author: gjm 30 August 2015 11:07:32AM 15 points [-]

You could stand to be more explicit in your reasoning. At the moment it seems to go like this:

  • One paper that found big benefits from deworming has recently been subject to criticism, which criticism has in turn been criticized, etc.
  • GiveWell posted some discussion of the debate that you think doesn't engage with the meat of the issue.
    • It seems to me to engage with quite a lot, and you don't say what it is you think they aren't engaging with.
  • Therefore GiveWell are inept.
  • Therefore, giving to GiveWell's recommended charities is worse than, and I quote, buying healthier food for yourself.

It seems to me that no part of this argument makes much sense. There are intelligent experts on both sides of the "worm wars"; GiveWell's reasoning doesn't seem obviously crazy to me (their support for deworming was never entirely based on M&K's findings; many of those findings hold up under the currently-debated reanalysis; the EA case for deworming was always that although the effectiveness of deworming is highly uncertain it's really really cheap and the current estimates of its cost-effectiveness would need to be too high by an order of magnitude or more for it to stop being better than, e.g. giving money directly to the beneficiaries -- which, you may note, is an intervention that GiveWell are also recommending, so it's not as if they aren't discounting deworming somewhat on account of the uncertainty); none of this seems to justify the extremely strong words you use.

If you have a more detailed argument that actually gets from the available evidence to "the EA movement is hopelessly messed up", let's hear it. That would be interesting and important. But for the moment I'm afraid I've got you in the same mental pigeonhole as others who've come along to LW and said "I've found some nits to pick with something EAs tend to approve of; therefore we should give up the whole idea of charity and concentrate on benefitting ourselves".

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 28 August 2015 03:26:24AM 0 points [-]

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an efficient way to get information about karma voting patterns.

Comment author: gjm 28 August 2015 09:35:18AM 0 points [-]

An inefficient way would do. But maybe "shockingly inefficient" is as good as it gets. The Reddit database architecture (which IIRC LW uses) is ... unusual.

Comment author: Lumifer 26 August 2015 09:07:04PM -1 points [-]

in such a way as to imply

In such a way as to imply that two civilized people -- even with different interests -- can negotiate and come to an agreement without engaging in lawyer warfare and without getting the justice system involved (other than putting an official stamp on the agreement).

Besides, what both you and VoiceOfRa (heh) care about is probably not so much divorce laws, but rather prevalent practices in the Family Courts which typically have very wide latitude in deciding on the post-(antagonistic)divorce arrangements.

Comment author: gjm 26 August 2015 11:19:56PM 0 points [-]

If A and B get married -- even if they are both good people and know one another to be good people -- then there is a non-negligible chance that at some point their marriage will break down. In that case -- even if they are both good people -- there is a non-negligible chance that it will do so acrimoniously and some variety of hostilities will ensue. There is a further non-negligible chance that their marriage will end on reasonably friendly terms but then, in the course of tidying up the legal loose ends, one of them will engage a lawyer who notices that they could do "better" and who strongly encourages them to do so. There is a further non-negligible chance (I think) that when they divorce there will be children involved and it will be necessary to involve the legal system.

In any of those cases, what happens will be influenced by the divorce laws. Or, at the very least, I don't see how A and B can know that it won't without being familiar with the divorce laws.

Furthermore, A may be sure when A and B get married that B is a good person, but s/he may turn out not to be so good after all. Or one or both may become less good over time, which is a thing that sometimes happens to people who are unhappily married and even to people who aren't.

Now, for the sake of good relations at the start of A and B's marriage, it may be best if A doesn't think B is looking up divorce laws just in case and vice versa. The best way to avoid that may be for A and B genuinely not to look up divorce laws before they are married. And the best way to avoid that may be for A and B genuinely not to care about divorce laws, even though aside from the effect on each of thinking that the other anticipates possible divorce they'd be better off knowing. But that isn't the same as saying that if you take care to marry a good person then you will never be affected by divorce laws.

Comment author: Lumifer 26 August 2015 02:24:03PM -1 points [-]

I do not believe that marrying good people is sufficient to make divorce laws irrelevant

I'm talking on a personal level, not social. In the same way I would suggest that you not rob anyone and if you follow that suggestion, laws about robbery will be irrelevant to you (insert the usual disclaimers).

Comment author: gjm 26 August 2015 08:56:02PM 0 points [-]

Yes, I understood that you meant individuals rather than society as a whole. And I am suggesting that a policy of only marrying good people is not sufficient to keep a person from having to care about divorce laws. Unless e.g. you define "good" in such a way as to imply "would never get divorced" or "would, if getting divorced, never have interests that sharply diverge from their ex-spouse's" or something, which I would think highly unreasonable and which would make it even more impossible to be sure of not marrying someone not-good.

... Oh, wait. Is what you're really suggesting a policy of never marrying at all? Because that (1) is probably the only way to be sure of not marrying anyone who isn't "good" and (2) would indeed make it very unlikely that one would need to care about divorce laws.

Comment author: Lumifer 26 August 2015 05:49:19AM 1 point [-]

Do I detect a subtle hint of disapproval in that sneering?

I expect much more from a spouse than just being a business partner bound by a long contract.

As to divorce laws, my suggestion would be to marry good people. That makes divorce laws irrelevant.

Comment author: gjm 26 August 2015 09:54:29AM 1 point [-]

I do not believe that marrying good people is sufficient to make divorce laws irrelevant, unless you define "good" so strongly that it's basically impossible to be justifiably confident that one is marrying a good person.

Comment author: Clarity 24 August 2015 12:17:28PM *  1 point [-]

How many of the following do you identify with, strangers?

 Is preoccupied with details, rules, lists, order, organization, or schedules to the extent that the major point of the activity is lost.
Shows perfectionism that interferes with task completion (e.g., is unable to complete a project because his or her own overly strict standards are not met).
Is excessively devoted to work and productivity to the exclusion of leisure activities and friendships (not accounted for by obvious economic necessity).
Is overconscientious, scrupulous, and inflexible about matters of morality, ethics, or values (not accounted for by cultural or religious identification).
Is unable to discard worn-out or worthless objects even when they have no sentimental value.
Is reluctant to delegate tasks or to work with others unless they submit to exactly his or her way of doing things.
Adopts a miserly spending style toward both self and others; money is viewed as something to be hoarded for future catastrophes.
Shows rigidity and stubbornness.

For me it's the 1st, 6th, 7th and 8th

Now that I've recognised these personality traits, and being young, I can consciously overide them. Yay!

Comment author: gjm 26 August 2015 08:51:59AM 6 points [-]

For those who are preoccupied with lists that can actually be read and hold to the overly strict standard that preformatted text shouldn't be used where bulleted lists are intended, here's that list again in more readable form:

  • Is preoccupied with details, rules, lists, order, organization, or schedules to the extent that the major point of the activity is lost.
  • Shows perfectionism that interferes with task completion (e.g., is unable to complete a project because his or her own overly strict standards are not met).
  • Is excessively devoted to work and productivity to the exclusion of leisure activities and friendships (not accounted for by obvious economic necessity).
  • Is overconscientious, scrupulous, and inflexible about matters of morality, ethics, or values (not accounted for by cultural or religious identification).
  • Is unable to discard worn-out or worthless objects even when they have no sentimental value.
  • Is reluctant to delegate tasks or to work with others unless they submit to exactly his or her way of doing things.
  • Adopts a miserly spending style toward both self and others; money is viewed as something to be hoarded for future catastrophes.
  • Shows rigidity and stubbornness.

And for those who overconscientiously think that one should cite one's sources, I'll add that these are the DSM-5 criteria for OCD, and that having four of them is supposed to indicate OCD.

In response to comment by Elo on Glossary of Futurology
Comment author: mind_bomber 25 August 2015 03:38:55AM -1 points [-]

done. unboldened the top section and added a "summery break."

is a "summery break" the same as a "page-separation line?" i dont really see what a "summery break" does, but it was the closest thing i saw to a "page seperation line."

Comment author: gjm 25 August 2015 05:09:43PM 2 points [-]

A summery break is like a winter break but warmer. A summary break is, I'm pretty sure, what Elo meant by a page-separation line.

If your article looks like A [summary break] B, then:

  • When it appears in a list of articles, A will appear along with a link to the full article.
  • When it is viewed on its own, you will see A and then B.

It doesn't produce any visual separation beyond an ordinary paragraph break; if you want more than that, you could e.g. put a horizontal rule after the summary break and before B.

Comment author: gjm 25 August 2015 04:31:50PM 3 points [-]

I don't think I believe the sockpuppet hypothesis for why this post and Y_i_a's comment on it have a bunch of upvotes.

  • Main post: -18, 38% => either +28-46 or +29-47.
  • Comment: -11, 37% => +16-27.

The numbers of upvotes are very different in the two cases. If Y_i_a is using a load of socks then it's hard to see why s/he wouldn't use all the socks for both. You'd expect something like the same number of upvotes and downvotes for the original post and the comment.

On the other hand, if it's just that readers like/dislike this sort of thing in roughly 3:5 proportions, you'd get what we see here: the original post and its comments are both at about the same %positive despite quite different numbers of votes in each case.

This isn't a terribly strong argument, for all kinds of reasons. E.g., you might think that people who get as far as reading the comment would have a different like:dislike ratio from ones who just saw the original post. Maybe Y_i_a has a drawerful of socks but for some reason is happy being at about 3/8 positive. Etc. But I think the most likely thing is just that a substantial fraction of readers liked this.

View more: Next