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

Comment author: Bongo 24 June 2011 03:27:46PM 0 points [-]

voted up to the main page

Note that posts aren't voted up to anywhere; they're promoted by editors.

Comment author: randomwalker 26 June 2011 07:44:46PM 0 points [-]

Ah, I see, thanks.

Comment author: gwern 18 June 2011 11:11:03PM *  2 points [-]

! You're Arvind? I had no idea. Gosh, the past few days have been interesting for me - first Piotr Wozniak tells me he's incrementally reading 8 articles mentioning or by me, then Danny Hillis replies to a comment of mine over at the Technium, and now here's Arvind Narayanan.

I'd say that any post that's good enough to get voted up to the main page is worth tens of thousands of dollars to mankind. Easily.

On one hand, I agree - if a main page post improves one high-value person's time, that alone is probably a few tens of thousands' worth. The other part of me is cynically remarking that Wozniak and psychologists in general have been advocating spaced repetition for the last >2 decades / centuries (respectively), the research is unassailable, and yet... So what's the marginal return on another literature survey?

A few comments:

  • You mention creatine on your blog. Creatine only works in specific demographics; I don't know whether they include you.
  • You mention dual n-back; the results seem to keep getting weaker since Jaeggi 2008, and Jaeggi 2011 seems extremely weak. I used to be extremely enthusiastic, but as the studies keep coming in... At this point, I'm not sure how much time is worth putting into DNB for just the WM benefits. Probably not much past D5B though.
Comment author: randomwalker 18 June 2011 11:49:30PM 0 points [-]

Thanks for the information! That does look pretty damning for dual n-back. As for creatine, I'm not vegetarian but my meat consumption is lower than average, especially when I'm not weight training. At any rate, I stopped taking it after a couple of months because I decided the unknown long-term health risk from increased renal stress wasn't worth it.

Comment author: gwern 18 June 2011 09:04:28PM *  2 points [-]

It's not a literature review, but http://33bits.org/2011/06/06/the-surprising-effectiveness-of-prizes-as-catalysts-of-innovation/ does link to a McKinsey report on prizes, which ought to be good reading if their reputation can be relied upon.

Comment author: randomwalker 18 June 2011 10:35:06PM 2 points [-]

It's funny you linked to my post on prizes, which brought me here, because I'm actually very interested in spaced repetition. In fact just a couple of weeks ago I mentioned it's potentially worth millions of dollars to me: http://arvindn.livejournal.com/132233.html

You guys need to get more rational about the value and importance of what you're doing in this community. You're arguing over trivial amounts of money here. I'd say that any post that's good enough to get voted up to the main page is worth tens of thousands of dollars to mankind. Easily.

I'm putting my money where my mouth is chipping in $100 for the new prize. [Edit. Hmm, I got a paypal receipt but the total on chipin hasn't changed. Maybe just need to wait for a bit.]

Finally, I'm only a sporadic reader, but allow me to express my deep gratitude and admiration for the community.

Comment author: randomwalker 09 March 2008 08:52:13PM 0 points [-]

The problem with this blog is that you occasionally say amazingly insightful things but the majority of your posts, like this one, say something blindingly obvious in a painfully verbose way. But then it could be that some of the things that are amazingly insightful to me are blindingly obvious to someone else, and vice versa. Oh well.

In response to Circular Altruism
Comment author: randomwalker 23 January 2008 02:36:18AM 3 points [-]

I think "Shut up and Multiply" would be a good tagline for this blog, and a nice slogan for us anti-bias types in general!

Comment author: randomwalker 10 January 2008 01:26:02PM 0 points [-]

I think you can still have probabilities sum to 1: probability 1 would be the theoretical limit of probability reaching infinite certitude. Just like you can integrate over the entire real line, i.e -∞ to ∞ even though those numbers don't actually exist.

Comment author: randomwalker 18 November 2007 04:11:50AM 8 points [-]

Hi, I'm a lurker on this site. I think this is a brilliant idea. I've just set up a wiki at http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/The_Simple_Math_of_Everything

Please go forth and edit!

Note: I am not the administrator; I have no special privileges. More info on that page.