More ideas below. Incidentally, I am not really aiming to win the thread here. I just learned the cool technique of writing lists of 100 ideas, the idea being that quantity leads to quality. Apparently it's most effective to have some people generate ideas, and others critique them. By now I'm firmly in the first camp on this task.

The latest ideas:

• Groundswell (as in logical grounds)
• Enhance Mental
• Inferential Iteration
• Phronesis (or Fronesis)
• Logical Operators
• Mentat Mentors
• Sharp Ratio (a pun on this)

Edit: Fixed links.

More ideas below. Incidentally, I am not really aiming to win the thread here. I just learned the cool technique of writing lists of 100 ideas, the idea being that quantity leads to quality. Apparently it's most effective to have some people generate ideas, and others critique them. By now I'm firmly in the first camp on this task.

The latest ideas:

• Groundswell (as in logical grounds)
• Enhance Mental
• Inferential Iteration
• Phronesis (or Fronesis)
• Logical Operators
• Mentat Mentors
• Sharp Ratio (a pun on this)

Edit: Fixed links.

I upvoted, but I'll clarify why, as this is a list: the only name I like on this list is Level Up, but I strongly like it.

Wrote a list of 100 ideas, here are the highlights:

• Insight Out
• The Upsight Institute
• Wisdom18
• Level Up
• Thinking Plus
• Reason Out
• Making Sense

Wrote a list of 100 ideas, here are the highlights:

• Insight Out
• The Upsight Institute
• Wisdom18
• Level Up
• Thinking Plus
• Reason Out
• Making Sense

Important and timely (the next Melbourne LW meetup will focus on setting good goals, an exercise which has always confounded me).

I find particularly interesting the "wedding gift todo" example, where imagined achievement of the goal stands-in for actually achieving the stated goal (giving a wedding gift). We want to have and act on "goals" rather than "urges". But setting goals is the kind of activity where "urges" can dominate. To me this looks like the analogue of belief-in-belief. We want our reasoning processes to be reflexively consistent, but in practice they often fail to work that way.

Edit: And when I go back and look at "Belief in Belief", that's where Eliezer outlines the "invisible dragon" example, so my main point is already implicit in this post!

There's also the possibility that you're being inconvenient to them. Say, vegetarians can't go to a true meat lover's party, people who get up early might need ME to get up eartly for whatever reason, and if your business fails and I live with you, that's obviously my problem.

I've already told Andrew I'm attending, hope to meet the rest of you there too :-)

Forensic investigations could be conducted by neutral groups.

Haha. Neutral groups. In a role that requires status, wields power and people have an enormous motivation to influence them. That is going to work.

Trial by Jury; Trial by Judge

Juries were originally taken to know something about the relevant events. The modern form of jury trials is a weird hybrid of inherited practices and contemporary political ideals. Like most legal phenomena :-)

That modern juries are inexperienced in criminal matters could be a positive feature. Judges may be jaded by constant exposure to narratives of crime. In wealthy countries, serious crimes are exceptional events. Jurors have reason to pay attention to narratives of such events.

Further, legal experts worry about naive juries being swayed by irrational considerations. This might draw expert attention to cognitive biases, and result in institutional steps to avoid them. Legal experts may be less willing to concede that they themselves are biased. Eliminating juries might mean less expert consideration of hazards to good reasoning in criminal trials.

I think it might be useful to focus on how juries decide cases. For example, juries could be told to hold off on proposing solutions. The jury's group dynamics could be tweaked to promote rational discussion, perhaps by allocating jurors specific roles in the discussion (eg "your job is to tell the group if they're assuming something that might not be true", "your job is to look up information in the transcript and see if we're remembering it correctly").