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

Comment author: RedMan 25 March 2017 06:44:02PM *  0 points [-]

The IAT is part of a somewhat widely used assessment of sex offenders, the Able Assessment, and is less invasive than penile plethysmography (ref1). Unfortunately, IATs have been shown to be unhelpful for identifying female child sex offenders, as their cognitive approach to offending is different from that of men ('I was coerced by a man/lonely and horny' vs 'entitled and attracted to the bodies of children') (ref2).

There is likely a false positive rate for an IAT, enough that it is relegated to the realm of polygraphy, and inadmissible in court...but I am not particularly concerned, as it is likely not large enough to render the test worse than random, and for a community like this, given that no additional discrimination will be applied beyond 'please live somewhere else', males in this specific, vulnerable community should be fine with submitting to an IAT. Given the 'male coercion' factor in female sex offenders, denying access to men who 'fail' the IAT would probably reduce the liklihood of female offending as well.

The reproducibility crisis is real, and most psychometric tests are lousy for a number of reasons, but it is possible to extract data that is useful, though not perfect, for making decisions. This is not a fire-and-forget solution to the problem, but in concert with normal behavior intended to reduce harm, it will hopefully help prevent the 'Rationalist Baugruppe' from devolving into a 'Rationalist Pitcairn Island'

Assessment survey: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2993520/ Survey on women: https://beta.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/developing-assessment-and-treatment-practices-female-sexual-offenders

Comment author: philh 27 March 2017 05:50:45PM 0 points [-]

This isn't something I find sufficiently compelling to spend a lot of time on.

But I note that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abel_Assessment does not seem particularly reassuring. I note that your first reference does not mention the IAT under that name, and from skimming doesn't appear to talk about it under a different name. I note that the IAT not working on women is consistent with the IAT simply failing to replicate. And I note that

The reproducibility crisis is real, and most psychometric tests are lousy for a number of reasons, but it is possible to extract data that is useful, though not perfect, for making decisions.

Sounds semantically similar to "a lot of things are failing to replicate, but I think this thing works anyway".

So I remain unconvinced.

Comment author: RedMan 20 March 2017 12:29:38PM *  0 points [-]

This problem is an easy one to solve. Implicit association tests are effective at discriminating pedophiles from non-pedophiles.

Have 'age of consent' set as a community norm (keep it legal folks!) and 'must score under community-assessed maximum tolerable score on the pedo-IAT' as a condition of moving in.

You'd be the first neighborhood association to take this sort of strong, invasive(?) measure for preventing child abuse in a close knit community, I don't think they do this in Celebration, Florida (or whatever the Disney World community is called)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23613137

Note, any implementation should also include eye tracking, or another analytic to detect a user looking away and clicking at a constant rate. Looking away and clicking to advance at random or at a constant rate is the only mechanism for defeating an IAT.

How do I apply for a slot in the house? I'm tired of living by the sword and would love to relocate to a tech hub but don't know anyone.

Comment author: philh 22 March 2017 12:22:17PM 3 points [-]

I am skeptical that the IAT can accurately detect pedophiles. The article is paywalled, so I can't say anything specific about it, but I can gesture in the general direction of the reproducability crisis.

Comment author: Bound_up 20 March 2017 11:49:25PM 0 points [-]

Suppose there are 100 genes which figure into intelligence, the odds of getting any one being 50%.

The most common result would be for someone to get 50/100 of these genes and have average intelligence.

Some smaller number would get 51 or 49, and a smaller number still would get 52 or 48.

And so on, until at the extremes of the scale, such a small number of people get 0 or 100 of them that no one we've ever heard of or has ever been born has had all 100 of them.

As such, incredible superhuman intelligence would be manifest in a human who just got lucky enough to have all 100 genes. If some or all of these genes could be identified and manipulated in the genetic code, we'd have unprecedented geniuses.

Comment author: philh 21 March 2017 12:36:24PM 1 point [-]

You're also assuming that the genes are independently distributed, which isn't true if intelligent people are more likely to have kids with other intelligent people.

Comment author: Alicorn 17 March 2017 01:46:56AM 19 points [-]

If you like this idea but have nothing much to say please comment under this comment so there can be a record of interested parties.

Comment author: philh 17 March 2017 02:02:44PM 1 point [-]

I'd be interested, but not interested enough to relocate.

Comment author: MrMind 07 March 2017 08:09:10AM 0 points [-]

Karma system itself doesn't specify what you get most karma for.

Indeed, but how would you enforce a system of points granted if and only if someone advances the goal of this site?

Also, social status is perceived not only by how much karma one has, but also how they are treated

This I think is unavoidable in a human society.

Comment author: philh 07 March 2017 10:19:41AM 0 points [-]

Indeed, but how would you enforce a system of points granted if and only if someone advances the goal of this site?

You seem to have hit on (one reason) why the prestige economy is different from the karma system.

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 20 February 2017 11:02:59AM 1 point [-]

Unless only one roll of the die was seen by the hundreds of people, and it came up "3".

Comment author: philh 20 February 2017 12:37:57PM 1 point [-]

Ah, sure. It would have been better of me to say "if the market has collectively observed hundreds of rolls".

Comment author: Dagon 20 February 2017 05:25:39AM *  6 points [-]

Missing information - how many people have rolled the die how many times before participating in the market? If you don't expect that there's private information that the market can make public, you shouldn't expect it to indicate truth.

Also missing - what are the actual contracts? Is this a wager on the next roll of the die? Meaning 50% is paying 1:1, 10% paying 9:1 ($100 bet on 3 pays $100, $100 bet on 6 pays $900 if it wins)?

In that case, if the market is one person who saw one roll, I bet 5 contracts on 6, and one on each of 1,2,4,5. If the market is hundreds of people, even if they've each only seen it once (independently; hundreds of rolls with one observer each, not 100s of observers of one roll), then the market has likely already worked out the correct odds, so my observation doesn't add much.

Comment author: philh 20 February 2017 10:36:04AM 3 points [-]

Note: if the market is hundreds of people, and it's a market on which face comes up 50% of the time (not on which face will come up on a specific roll), and it only gets 50% odds on that being a particular number, then something unusual is happening. An efficient market under these circumstances should be very confident.

(I haven't done any explicit calculations, but I'm reasonably confident.)

Comment author: username2 13 February 2017 04:22:46PM 2 points [-]

Are there interesting youtubers lesswrong is subscribed to ? I never really used youtube and after watching history of japan I get the feeling I'm missing out on some stuff.

Comment author: philh 15 February 2017 01:49:15PM 3 points [-]

I enjoy Every Frame a Painting on cinematography.

Comment author: satt 07 February 2017 09:16:35PM *  1 point [-]

Delightfully, both the Internet Archive and IMDb are venerable enough that we can see how IMDb's top 250 looked 13 years ago. That lets us do a rough test of whether sequel 'n' adaptation spam clogging the chart is a new phenomenon.

IMDb's top 10, as of June 6, 2004:

  1. Godfather, The (1972)
  2. Shawshank Redemption, The (1994)
  3. Godfather: Part II, The (1974)
  4. Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, The (2003)
  5. Schindler's List (1993)
  6. Shichinin no samurai (1954)
  7. Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The (2002)
  8. Casablanca (1942)
  9. Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The (2001)
  10. Star Wars (1977)

Of these, I think 8 are sequels or adaptations (the original two are Shichinin no samurai and Star Wars).

Adding the next 15 films, things are slightly more complicated: Citizen Kane, Pulp Fiction, The Usual Suspects, Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo, and Amélie look pretty clearly original, but Raiders of the Lost Ark is more arguable, 'cause apparently it's an uncredited ripoff of Secret of the Incas. That makes 7½ originals out of 25.

Comparing to now, we've gone from 2/10 and 7½/25 originals to 1/10 and 5/25. That does suggest a recent trend towards more sequels and adaptations, but there were already a lot in '04.

Edit, 4 days later: see below for some corrections.

Comment author: philh 08 February 2017 10:33:15AM 1 point [-]

Good thinking! I agree this is evidence that the phenomenon is stronger today than in the past.

I think the 2004 numbers are actually higher than you suggest. Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo is the third in the Man With No Name trilogy, but North by Northwest and Memento seem to be original. I'm also not sure how to count Casablanca, which apparently was based on an unproduced play.

Comment author: philh 07 February 2017 03:10:53PM 1 point [-]

In a similar way, there is a building popular consensus that Hollywood is not pursuing original ideas as much anymore and is relying on rebooting old stories and franchises.

I'm not sure this is a recent thing. For example, I think it's relevant that if you look at the IMDB top 250, you see an awful lot of sequels and adaptations, including 9 out of the top 10. (The exception is Pulp Fiction; in the top 25, we also get Inception, Seven Samurai, Se7en and The Usual Suspects).

View more: Next