http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html Kathryn Schulz is a self-identified "Wrongologist" (in fact, @wrongologist is her user name on Twitter). She has written a popular book ("Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error", web site) and also writes the Slate column 'The Wrong Stuff'. Her TED talk covers the problem of disagreement, the...
Background: This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License and Creative Commons Attributions-Share-Alike Unported. It was posted to Wikipedia by an author who wished to remain anonymous, known variously as "24" and "142". It was subsequently removed from view on Wikipedia, but its text has been preserved by...
Any progress on this? With the switchover from LW1 now imminent, I've looked at the LessWrong code on github a bit more and from a cursory review, it really does seem that the usecase or 'flow' of a user editing their own "recovery email" address is broken. The code calls the proper Meteor/Vulcan functions when creating a new user, and will in turn create new users when importing them for the first time from a legacy (LW1) database, but aside from that, there is no acknowledgement that Vulcan/Meteor has its own functions in the 'account'-related packages for setting/updating these data. Did you test this user flow (even just in a test instance of the code) and verify that it can be used to set an email address that the "forgot password/reset password" will rely on?
Part of it is just semantics, really. In contemporary times, "art" tends to be connoted as left-wing, while "design" and "craft", which occupy much of the same space, as apolitical or even loosely on the 'right'. Wiewing website design as "art" as opposed to a "craft", or even just one design activity among many, isn't quite a value-free choice!
There's currently a lot of useful content at the LessWrong (LW1) Wiki, wiki.lesswrong.com. What will happen to it? It seems that at a very minimum, you should request a wikidump as well from Trike; it would even be relatively easy to make a public dump available, using the tools that MediaWiki makes available for this purpose.
Great news, overall. However, do notice that, by all indications, this migration will in fact break links, for the case of "links to comments on a deleted LW1 post". As I mentioned on LW1 itself, given such a LW1 "permlink", you can freely explore "parent" comments and replies. Lesser Wrong does not support individual "permlink" pages, so it simply links to the individual comment as part of an "all comments" listings, which breaks in the "deleted page" case (It also impacts the case of a page with a large number of comments--if only from a sheer usability POV--because a user is now effectively forced to load all comments instead of just requesting... (read more)
I actually thought the "coalitional" part did deserve a mention, precisely because it is one of the few facets of the problem that we can just fight (which is not to say that coalitions don't have a social and formal role to play in any actual political system!) Again, I think Crick would also agree with this, and ISTM that he did grapple with these issues at a pretty deep level. If we're going to go beyond our traditional "no politics!" attitude, I really have to wonder why he's not considered a trusted reference here, on a par w/ the Sequences and whatever the latest AI textbook is.
... I'll just briefly note for the benefit of others that this excerpt seems like the biggest crux and point of disagreement. ...
In tne interest of the general norm of "trying to identify cruxes and make them explicit", I'd like to endorse this - except that to me, the issue goes well beyond "human coalitions" and also encompasses many other things that would generally fall under the rubric of 'politics' in a broad sense - or for that matter, of 'ethics' or 'morality'! When people, plausibly, were 'politically' mindkilled by Duncan's Dragon Army proposal, this was not necessarily due to their belonging to an "anti-Duncan", "anti-rationality" or whatever-coalition; instead, the proposal itself... (read more)
That this can be a place where people will actually put forth the effort to get the basic everywhere everyday flawed human communication bugs out of the picture, and do deliberate and intentional communication and collaborative truth seeking on a meaningfully higher level. ... Everything Scott said in that post rings true to me about people and populations in general. But the hope is that LessWrong is not just humans doing business as usual. The hope is that LessWrong is actually different.
Look, I hate to break the news to you, but just like Soylent Green, Less Wrong is people! Your goals and aspirations are extremely worthwhile and I entirely agree with them,... (read more)
Ah, but who will argue for the "Alex's" who were genuinely made uncomfortable by the proposed norms of Dragon's Army - perhaps to the point of disregarding even some good arguments and/or evidence in favor of it - and who are now being conflated with horribly abusive people as a direct result of this LW2 post? Social discomfort can be a two-way street.
I myself was wrong to engage with them as if their beliefs had cruxes that would respond to things like argument and evidence.
This is a fully-general-counterargument to any sort of involvement by people with even middling real-world concerns in LW2 - so if you mean to cite this remark approvingly as an example of how we should enforce our own standard of "perfectly rational" epistemic norms, I really have to oppose this. It is simply a fact about human psychology that "things like argument and evidence" are perhaps necessary but not sufficient to change people's minds about issues of morality or politics that they actually care about, in a deep sense! This is the whole reason why Bernard Crick developed his own list of political virtues which I cited earlier in this very comment section. We should be very careful about this, and not let non-central examples on the object level skew our thinking about these matters.
http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html
Kathryn Schulz is a self-identified "Wrongologist" (in fact, @wrongologist is her user name on Twitter). She has written a popular book ("Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error", web site) and also writes the Slate column 'The Wrong Stuff'. Her TED talk covers the problem of disagreement, the nature of belief, overconfidence bias and how to actually change your mind. She maintains that most folks actively avoid the unpleasant feeling of "being wrong", which is an important point I have not seen before (but see The Importance of Saying 'Oops' and Crisis of Faith). Unfortunately, she does not discuss reasoning about uncertainty, so her arguments against 'the feeling of right' end up seeming rather shallow.
Discuss her TED talk here. (Her broader work is also obviously on topic.)
Background: This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License and Creative Commons Attributions-Share-Alike Unported. It was posted to Wikipedia by an author who wished to remain anonymous, known variously as "24" and "142". It was subsequently removed from view on Wikipedia, but its text has been preserved by a number of mirrors. While it could be seen as no more than a basic primer in moral philosophy, it is arguably required reading to anyone unfamiliar with the philosophical background of such concepts as Friendly AI and Coherent Extrapolated Volition.
The search for a formal method for evaluating and quantifying ethicality and morality of human actions stretches back to ancient times.... (read 1200 more words →)
Hi, it currently appears to me that the LW2 functionality around 'recovery email' addresses is subtly broken, and if I am correct, this will impact LW1 users who did not set a recovery email until after the first database import to LesserWrong, as well as any users wishing to change their associated 'recovery' email in the future. Please see this subthread (or GreaterWrong link) for details about the issue. I'm not confident that opening a formal "issue" ticket on GitHub would be appropriate here, because all I have is circumstantial evidence, and I am quite unsure how things were expected to work in the first place. However, I do think some cursory attention from the devs would very much be appropriate, if only to ascertain whether there's an actual issue here.