Can anyone tell me who wrote this?

Survey completed in full, reporting in for karma as per ancient tradition.

Thanks to Scott and Dan for all the work they put into this!

I got Louie's newsletter and clicked the Darkcoin link but couldn't figure out how to actually buy any. What did I miss?

Did your psychologist describe the type of information that should not be known?

In any case, I'm not completely sure that accepting new information (never mind seeking it out) is always fully compatible with rationality-as-winning. Nick Bostrom for example has compiled a taxonomy of information hazards over on his site; any of them could potentially be severe enough to overcome the informational advantage of their underlying data. Of course, they do seem to be pretty rare, and I don't think a precautionary principle with regard to information is justified in the absence of fairly strong and specific reasoning.

Took the survey. I assume from the phrasing that 'country' means where I'm "from" rather than where I currently reside (there is more room for uncertainty about the former than about the latter). Might be interesting to put both questions.

The money is coming out of my pocket, it is not funging against any other charitable donations, and I am in favor of someone claiming the prize and using it to buy something nice that they like.

Survey completed in full. Begging for karma as per ancient custom.

I choose DEFECT because presumably the money is coming out of CFAR's pocket and I assume they can use the money better than whichever random person wins the raffle. If I win, I commit to requesting it be given as an anonymous donation to CFAR.

EDIT: Having been persuaded my Yvain and Vaniver, I reverse my position and intend to spend the prize on myself. Unfortunately I've already defected and now it's too late to not be an asshole! Sorry about that. Only the slightly higher chance of winning can soothe my feelings of guilt.

Which is why I said it. So maybe he'll actually post.

Jack Sparrow: [after Will draws his sword] Put it away, son. It's not worth you getting beat again.

Will Turner: You didn't beat me. You ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I'd kill you.

Jack Sparrow: Then that's not much incentive for me to fight fair, then, is it? [Jack turns the ship, hitting Will with the boom]

Jack Sparrow: Now as long as you're just hanging there, pay attention. The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do. For instance, you can accept that your father was a pirate and a good man or you can't. But pirate is in your blood, boy, so you'll have to square with that some day. And me, for example, I can let you drown, but I can't bring this ship into Tortuga all by me onesies, savvy? So, can you sail under the command of a pirate, or can you not?

--Pirates of the Caribbean

The pirate-specific stuff is a bit extraneous, but I've always thought this scene neatly captured the virtue of cold, calculating practicality. Not that "fairness" is never important to worry about, but when you're faced with a problem, do you care more about solving it, or arguing that your situation isn't fair? What can you do, and what can't you do? Reminds me of What do I want? What do I have? How can I best use the latter to get the former?

The Boy Who Cried Wolf is a pretty good example of updating on new information, I guess.

Agreed, but the primary lesson of that story is "guard your reputation if you want to be believed." The reverse story--"don't waste your time on liars"--probably shouldn't end with there actually being a wolf, as one should not expect listeners to understand the sometimes subtle separation between good decision-making and good consequences.

But it seems sort of pointless to attempt to find old stories that show the superiority of a supposedly new way of thinking.

New stories are useful too.

I also wouldn't call rationality a new way of thinking, any more than I would call science a new way of thinking. Both are active fields of research and development. Both have transformative milestones, such that you might want to call science before X 'protoscience' instead of 'science', but only in the same way that modern science is 'protoscience' because Y hasn't happened yet.

It's also worth noting that the research and development often makes old ideas more precise. People ran empirical tests before they knew what empiricism was. Similarly, we should expect to see people acting cleverly before a systematic way to act cleverly was developed.

And if we do, what does that say about the superiority of the method (that is, that it was known N years ago but didn't take over the world)?

A meme's reproductive success and its desirability for its host can differ significantly.