Comment author: iconreforged 09 July 2014 07:28:48PM 0 points [-]

I'm putting together an Anki deck aimed at a college-level logic course.

Here's the shared deck: https://ankiweb.net/shared/info/450415218

Here's the repo on GitHub: https://github.com/iconreforged/Logic

Gimme some feedback and social commitment.

Comment author: ChristianKl 07 May 2014 07:17:08PM 4 points [-]

But if someone else studies something and makes cards to fill in their own gaps, that means that what you're studying may not cover material that you don't know you don't know.

This get's Anki wrong. You are not supposed to make cards about things that you don't know. That sets you up for cards that you forget. Anki exist to prevent forgetting of newly learned information.

The first two rules of SRS are according to Wozniak:
1. Do not learn if you do not understand
2. Learn before you memorize

When one starts sharing decks it frequently happens that people violate those rules and try to learn Anki cards for material that they haven't learned beforehand.

Comment author: iconreforged 08 May 2014 07:39:23PM *  3 points [-]

I totally agree. Shared decks encourage a lot of SRS vices.

But, given that they exist and that people are going to use them, is there a way to raise the quality of a shared deck significantly above the average? You can page through the shared decks on Anki's shared decks page and dredge up extremely low quality. If you look at the repository of decks by LW users, the average quality is much better, but could still be improved.

I propose that the MIRI courses are valuable, and that people learning them could benefit from Anki decks. I think the best way to make these Anki decks is a wiki-style collaborative effort.

Comment author: Metus 21 April 2014 10:57:23AM 1 point [-]

If the deck format is some kind of text like XML you could look into using git for distribution and a simple text editor for editing.

Comment author: iconreforged 25 April 2014 06:45:13PM 0 points [-]

Exactly the right avenue. Unfortunately, Anki typically uses its own idiosyncratic data format that's not very handy for this kind of thing, but it's possible to export and import decks to text, as it turns out.

The issue with this is that if you're months into studying a deck and you'd like to merge edits from other contributors, I'm not certain that you simultaneously import the edits and keep all of your progress.

Even so, the text deck route has the most promise as far as I can tell.

Comment author: Metus 22 April 2014 10:59:18PM 4 points [-]

So the quantified self (QS) community has been existing for a while. Just as bodybuilding groups should be excellent test beds for what kind of exercises and chemicals will yield high results, the QS community should yield a preferably small, low-cost set of measures you should determine about yourself. Do these exist? Can be any blood measure, rhythm, time, psychological value, net worth ...

Comment author: iconreforged 23 April 2014 04:49:19PM *  0 points [-]

I think that Quantified Mind provides some high-value tests. So long as you're willing to sit down and take a test, you can get data on:

  • Reaction Time
  • Visuo-spacial memory
  • Executive Function
  • Working Memory
  • Verbal learning
  • Motor function

Also, looking at what Gwern tracks, it seems helpful to have long-run data on subjective mood and energy. I randomly sample myself on that with PACO. PACO can allow you to poll yourself on any kind of thing you can imagine, like whether you're sitting, standing, or walking, or whether you're in public or private.

Edit: Added detail on QM.

Comment author: 2ZctE 22 April 2014 01:20:56AM 12 points [-]

I get confused when people use language that talks about things like "fairness", or whether people are "deserving" of one thing or another. What does that even mean? And who or what is to say? Is it some kind of carryover from religious memetic influence? An intuition that a cosmic judge decides what people are "supposed" to get? A confused concept people invoke to try to get what they want? My inclination is to just eliminate the whole concept from my vocabulary. Is there a sensible interpretation that makes these words meaningful to atheist/agnostic consequentialists, one that eludes me right now?

Comment author: iconreforged 23 April 2014 04:21:18PM *  0 points [-]

So, as I've heard Mike Munger explain it, fairness is evolution's solution to the equilibrium outcome selection problem. "Solution to the what?" you ask. This would be easy to explain if you're familiar with the Edgeworth box.

In a simplified economy consisting of two people and two goods, where the two people have some combination of different tastes and different initial baskets of things. Suppose that you have 20 oranges and 5 apples, and that I have 3 oranges and 30 apples, and that we each prefer more even numbers of fruits than either extreme. We can trade apples and oranges to make each of us strictly better off, but there's a whole continuum of possible trades that make us better off. And with your highly advanced social brain, you can tell that some of these trades are shit deals, like when I offer you 1 apple for 12 of your oranges. Even though we'd both mutually benefit, you'd be inclined to immediately counteroffer with something a closer to the middle of the continuum of mutually beneficial exchanges, or a point that benefits you more as a reprimand for my being a jerk. Dealing fairly with each other skips costly repeated bargaining, and standing up to jerks who deviate from approximate fairness preserves the norm.

This is the sort of intuition that we're trying to test for in the Ultimatum game.

Comment author: iconreforged 20 April 2014 10:24:19PM 1 point [-]

Does anyone know of a way to collaboratively manage a flashcard deck in Anki or Mnemosyne? Barring that, what are my options so far as making it so?

Even if only two people are working on the same deck, the network effects of sharing cards makes the card-making process much cheaper. Each can edit the cards made by the other, they can divide the effort between the two of them, and they reap the benefit of insightful cards they might not have made themselves.

Comment author: iconreforged 08 April 2014 02:56:47PM 9 points [-]

Does anyone else here have bizarre/hacky writing habits?

I discovered Amphetype, a learn-to-type application that allows you to type passages from anything that you get as a text file. But I've started to use it to randomly sample excerpts from my own writing. The process of re-typing it word for word makes me actually re-process it, mentally speaking, and I often find myself compelled to actually re-write something upon having re-typed it.

Something similar that I've had positive results with is to print out a draft, open a new file, and make myself transcribe the new draft to a new file.

Comment author: Emile 04 February 2014 09:02:18AM 3 points [-]

I can confirm that you and gwern are my favourite reads on Google+ (though I don't visit neither Google+ nor Facebook very often).

Comment author: iconreforged 08 February 2014 06:11:14PM 0 points [-]

I was about to post a comment that said the same!

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 25 January 2014 11:06:50PM *  19 points [-]

Has anyone toyed around with the idea of sending him off to get a math degree somewhere?

I think the bigger issue w/ people not taking EY seriously is he does not communicate (e.g. publish peer reviewed papers). Facebook stream of consciousness does not count. Conditional on great papers, credentials don't mean that much (otherwise people would never move up the academic status chain).

Yes it is too bad that writing things down clearly takes a long time.

Comment author: iconreforged 25 January 2014 11:45:29PM 3 points [-]

True. It seems like the great-papers avenue is being pursued full-steam these days with MIRI, but I wonder if they're going to run out of low-hanging fruit to publish, or if mainstream academia is going to drag their heels replying to them.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 25 January 2014 09:21:41PM 9 points [-]

Put another way, the purpose of signaling isn't so nobody will give you crap. It's so somebody will help you accomplish your goals.

People will give you crap, especially if they can get paid to do so. See gossip journalists, for instance. They are not paid to give boring and unsuccessful people crap; they are paid to give interesting and successful people crap.

Comment author: iconreforged 25 January 2014 11:42:18PM 1 point [-]

Well, yes, there is going to be some inevitable crap, but the purpose of signalling is so that you could impress a much larger pool of people. So it might not be much help for gossip journalists, but it might help with the marginal professional ethicist, mathematician, or public figure. In that area, you might get some additional "Anybody who can do that must be damn impressive.". Does the additional damn-impressive outweigh the cost? I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

View more: Next