= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Just to add my own two cents. The market for CS majors is excellent. I guarantee you; you won't have any trouble finding a job if you are a CS major. Nowadays, there isn't a company that doesn't have software people.
In response to
On the Fence? Major in CS
True, but what I want to emphasize is that the CS way of thinking is extremely valuable outside of the software field.
In response to
Consider Representative Data Sets
So, what's wrong with this article? Is it bad prose, or too hand-wavy assertions, or overly obscure presentation/inferential distance, or too much text, or too obvious a point? Please leave a comment, I really don't understand.
In general, I think that getting a custom of writing some formal review-like comments would be valuable as feedback, not about the subject of the article, but about presentation, especially if the article looks bad and there is much for the author to work on improving.
I think the problem is a combination of:
- length
- density of ideas too low --- long section resummarizing old posts
- prose hard to read, feels somehow flat --- try using shorter paragraphs, varying sentence lengths, using more tangible words and examples
Comparing to Robin's and Eliezer's stuff, the gold standards:
Robin's are generally very short, high-level, and high-density. Easy to read quickly for "what's this about? do I care?" and then reread several times to think carefully about.
Eliezer's are long and lower-density but meticulous and carefully arranged so that the ideas build brick on brick (and also offset length with effective, dramatic prose).
I would suggest trying to write this post Robin-style and see how it comes out: present your key points in as strong, terse and efficient a way as you can, even if you lose some people. Writing long posts seems harder.
Also, try pulling out some individual sentences and reading them out of context. Just to grab one almost at random: "Contamination by Priming is a problem that relates to the process of implicitly introducing the facts in the attended data set." Pretty inscrutable.
Compare to Anna Salomon's description of the same thing: "To sum up the principle briefly: your brain builds you up a self-image. You are the kind of person who says, and does... whatever it is your brain remembers you saying and doing." Even though hers is longer in words, the concepts are clearer and more explicit. The text is bouncier and has more places for the mind to grab onto.
Hope that helps? Good luck!
I haven't read Jaynes's work on the subject, so I couldn't say. However, if he thinks that equal probabilities mean equal obligation to be surprised, I disagree with him. It's easy to do things that are spectacularly unlikely - flip through a shuffled deck of cards to see a given sequence, for instance - that do not, and should not, surprise you at all.
That's because you didn't specify the sequence ahead of time, right?
By "bead jar guess" I mean a wild, nearly-groundless assignment of a probability to a proposition. This is as opposed to a solidly backed up estimate based on something like well-controlled sample data, or a guess made with an appeal to an inelegant but often-effective hack like the availability heuristic.
Groundless or not, if you propoose to run two experiments X and Y, and select outcomes x of experiment X and y of experiment Y before running the experiments, and assign x and y the same probabilities, you have to be equally surprised by x occurring as you are by y occurring, or I'm missing something deep about what you're saying about probabilities. Are you using the word "probability" in a different sense than Jaynes?
In response to
Bead Jar Guesses
This post confused me enormously. I thought I must be missing something, but reading over the comments, this seems to be true for virtually all readers.
What exactly do you mean by "bead jar guess"? "Surprise"? "Actual probability"? Are you making a new point or explaining something existing? Are you purposely being obscure "to make us think"?
I propose replacing this entire post with the following text:
Hey everybody! Read E.T. Jaynes's Probability Theory: The Logic Of Science!
In response to
Rational Groups Kick Ass
It sounds like you're arguing that there are increasing returns to rationality in groups.
I am not sure. But I think that it would be helpful to think about what experiment would demonstrate the argument you're making here. e.g. Give a rationality diagnostic exam to a bunch of people, then put them in groups of various sizes and measure how well they perform various tasks.
Relatively rational people can form deeply irrational groups, and vice versa.
I would probably take a group with rational institutions but irrational members over a group with irrational institutions but rational members.
Of course, rational people will be better on average at building rational groups, so I would still predict a positive correlation in the experiment.
How have you used rationality in your marriage and family life? Did it help you choose the right partner?
How do you 'imagine a couple that truly understood Aumann'?
I was several years away from starting to learn about x-rationality when I met my partner.
Since there seems to be some interest, I'm going to try to collect my thoughts to describe the contribution of x-rationality to my personal life, but this may take considerable time; I've never tried to put it in words, and there's a strong dash of "dancing about architecture" to it.
How about examples from your own work, marriage, or circle of friends?
I wanted to avoid the anecdotes-ain't-data writeoff and to avoid making the post too much about me specifically. Is that a mistake?
In response to
What's in a name? That which we call a rationalist…
I love the word "aspiring." It feels...aspirational. Humble.
I don't like "Less Wronger" or other names that are about the affiliation rather than the thing itself.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Whoa... you are suggesting that everyone else do what you didn't and the reasoning is a list of ideas with no data? No offense, but how do I know this is not a grass-is-greener, I-wish-I-would-have moment?
I would beware of other-optimizing. As soon as I graduated with a CS degree I realized I should have been in philosophy the whole time. I love my CS major and agree that it is an excellent choice and do not regret the work I put into the process. I also agree with your points. But choosing a major is not a small thing that should be tilted by a post based on anecdotal evidence from someone who didn't do it.
After watching math and physics majors struggle in CS101 I realized that CS is not an intuitive field for everyone. They were not stupid or lazy people. They just didn't "get it". You can graduate with a CS degree and never "get it" and not know jack shit about coding, systems, or any of the other great things you mentioned. I learned about those things. But right now I am working with someone who graduated with a CS degree and did not.
This isn't meant to be a rain-on-your-parade comment; I just want to warn the bloke who reads this post and thinks, "God, math is that useless? I guess I will go CS." The key part in your post they may have skimmed over is this:
If you are passionately in love with your field, go for it. If you are not, find a different field. CS is not something everyone can fall in love with and think about in the shower and over lunch and drifting off to sleep. Neither is Math, Physics, Engineering, Psychology...
I am very successful in my secret identity life, so no, this is not some kind of grass-is-greener observation; rather, it's an attempt to give practical advice to my younger selves out there. I majored in math and physics, and did well, and am in the world now, and can concretely see the ways that a CS education would have helped me, ways that people less smart than I am think better!
I'm comparing CS only to other technical majors.
I'm not proposing CS as an academic discipline, but as a discipline for training the mind for work in the world.
Do I know the intricate details of every reader's intellectual life? Do I claim that everyone who's currently majoring in math or econ drop it and switch to CS?
To quote Robin: