I've recently begun to experiment with alcohol for entertainment. While intoxicated I attempt to retain my mental control despite handicaps as a challenge in rationality. This has led me to observe my thinking patterns while sober more often--to a hypothetical superrational being, humans in the best scenario must seem at least as impaired as those beings would in their version of drunkedness. Some of the things I'm hoping to test are how my ability to analyze logical propositions, assign probability to various outcomes, or determine the choice that maximizes utility decline.

While testing my physical capabilities is straightforward (line walking, raise one foot and count), testing mental capabilities is much harder and I'm struggling to think of tests that are simple enough to self-administer in a handicapped state and produce results that I can analyze then or later. This will help me answer the question of How scratched can the lens be before it can no longer can see its flaws? Any suggestions of tests would be appreciated.

Fiction Books Thread

Nonfiction Books Thread

I just open a plain text file and write down all the relevant information I discover about a topic, along with my own analysis and commentary.

By way of example, at one point I considered burning numerous movie and anime files I had downloaded using uTorrent into discs with the intent of watching them on a DVD player, which is something I had basically zero experience with. This is the document that emerged as I kept on adding my research notes to the bottom of a text file over the course of several days (weeks?).

I'm trying to track down a fallacy or effect that was once explained to me and which I found plausible: The idea that whoever has the more complex and detailed mental model of a topic under question wins a discussion about a question - independent of the actual truth of the matter (and assuming no malicious intent).

The example cited as I remember it was about visual (microscope) inspection of blood samples for some boolean factor (present or not). Two persons got the same samples and were trained to recognize the factor one was always told the truth and the other was lied to a certain fraction of times. After the learning period both had to decide on the factor of some samples together. The result: Even though the person who was lied to had the less accurate model he almost always dominated the decision.

The offered explanation was that the lied to candidate had the more complex model (it somehow had to incorporate factors representing the lies) and that led to the availability of arguments (criteria to look for supposedly explaining the difference) which could be used to convince the other person - despite the falsity of those arguments.

Problem is: I can't find any studies or the like supporting this. Do you know of such a model strength effect? I think it is quite relevant as it seems to be behind the ability of liars or rhetorics to convice the audience by making up complex and impressive structures independent of their truth (the truth must just be inavailable enough).

A new challenge not present when everyone you knew was from your area: How do you know this person?

With text messages and twitter, conciseness is valued and practiced. Outside of those, typing is faster than handwriting and there is no physical limit on length, just what someone is willing to read.

Due to text communications, personal hygiene and appearance are less important than proper spelling and grammar. Now it is possible to have strong connections with people without knowing their real name or what they look like. Avoiding the meatspace completely is easy, so skills such as making eye contact, small talk, and strong handshakes decay.