= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I wonder why they didn't just use the same algorithm, but just make him less cautious. For example, instead of commenting when he's 90% sure he knows what he's talking about, make him do it when he's 75% sure.
decision makers rarely know any math IME.
He mentions it in the talk. They are searching for people with cognitive abilities at least +3 SD above average ( which equals IQ 145.) (EDIT: At 45:20 he starts talking about the study-design. )
I was under the impression that an IQ of 145 puts one in the 99.75% percentile but I never investigated too closely. Some stats:
" rarity on a 15 SD (e.g. Wechsler) and 16 SD (e.g. Stanford-Binet) scale: 145 99.8650032777% 1 in 741
99.7542037453% 1 in 407
In response to
comment
by
on
Why do people commit mathematical mistakes? What are the mechanisms behind them?
... That's basically what many theists object to Yudkowsky's sequences. "There are inferential gaps".
In response to
comment
by
on
Why do people commit mathematical mistakes? What are the mechanisms behind them?
I don't remember the exact quote or source, but I once read something along the lines of "humans don't prove anything, we just decide which side of the argument we will hold to a higher standard of proof."
In response to
comment
by
on
Why do people commit mathematical mistakes? What are the mechanisms behind them?
Really? How so?
In response to
comment
by
on
Why do people commit mathematical mistakes? What are the mechanisms behind them?
No matter how well you atomize a proof there remains inferential gaps that gets filled by humans agreeing that something is obvious. Some are considered axiomatic, many aren't.
Why do people ever reason correctly on mathematical problems? What are the mechanisms behind this seemingly miraculous kludge?
Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.
-Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina
In response to
comment
by
on
Why do people commit mathematical mistakes? What are the mechanisms behind them?
the more you investigate the foundations of mathematics the more miraculous "obvious" inference jumps will become.
In response to
[Question] What's your Elevator Pitch For Rationality?
"Basically your brain is trolling you."
You've identified a subtle problem with implementing decision theories, but the answer that the commonsense version of TDT "should" give is pretty clear: if the differences between two situations don't massively affect the utilities involved (from the perspective of the deciding agent), then they should belong to the same reference class.
If you shouldn't kill the patient in a house, then you still shouldn't kill him with a mouse, or on a boat, with a goat, on a train, in the rain, here or there, or anywhere.
this is somewhat circular. It works for the example but not knowing how similar two situations have to be before similar decisions produce similar utility is part of the problem.
In response to
Call for Personal Volunteers
is there no software that can help speed along video transcription?
Not sure I understand "starting strength". Do you mean that when starting strength training one should just drink milk?
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I'm surprised that Thiel doesn't engage more directly the hypothesis that for the last century (or perhaps century and a half), the living standards in the Western world have been determined by the race between rapid technological progress and somewhat less rapid degradation in the quality of government. To me this hypothesis seems very plausible, even highly probable. Assuming it is true, the interesting question is whether the recent stagnation is due to technological progress slowing down, the quality of government deteriorating faster, or perhaps the quality of government reaching some low point at which even extremely rapid technological progress can't save the day.
Also, these two variables are by no means independent. At the very least, bad government creates perverse incentives that draw smart and entrepreneurial people away from pushing real technical progress and towards rent-seeking. And as another interesting question, could it actually be that technological progress somehow inherently exacerbates the trends towards bad government, thus planting the seeds of its own future doom? I can think of some scary hypotheses along these lines, although they are highly speculative.
Nobody engages the topic seriously besides perhaps a handful of bloggers on the internet. To talk about the topic intelligently requires rare traits. An extremely broad swath of knowledge about econ and history, and the ability to not be mind-killed by politics chief among them.
With regard to great achievements enable bad government, yes you find strains of this thought in most of the "cyclical" types of historical analysis, most famous being Spengler.