All of Caesium's Comments + Replies

Caesium70

This is a fairly common and important criticism of aid; it is part of the hypothesis of Dambisa Moyo. Whilst a valid criticism against certain types of aid, it certainly does not apply to all of them. For example, public health interventions such as increased vaccinations, or combating infectious diseases, require little in the way of a local functioning economy. Furthermore, such items are generally considered to be both quasi-public goods (due to herd immunity) and merit goods -- so, there is a strong economic argument that they will be under provisioned... (read more)

Caesium20

There have been a fair few articles on LessWrong about utilitarian giving, with existential risk reduction and foreign aid being the most commonly recommended. Given that for many LessWrongers maximizing utilions is a major T. In my own investigations, I've found terribly few well-researched critiques on aid. Most of the criticism that does exist focuses on aid given directly to governments. Whilst this does make up a large portion of overall aid given, this is mostly irrelevant for e.g. deciding whether to give to any GiveWell recommended charities.

The ma... (read more)

Caesium40

I can only assume that this is a troll. You seem to have put a lot of work into it, so its somewhat disappointingly bland. Downvoted, unless you explain your idea more clearly.

Crackpot, not a troll. To additionally become a troll, he'd need to post more despite being unwelcome.

Caesium100

I was delivered from fear, fear of man, of heart, from rejection from a woman when I was 29 years old. The ministry team gave a word of knowledge regarding my birthday, May 26, confirmed the calling on my life and what was holding me back. No more timidity. I was delivered from self and was told I would be buried in Him and wake up in Christ. I was just reading Romans 6. Blessings and thank you for your obedience to God!

From Spiritual Healing Testimonies

Testimonials are not strong evidence. I don't know Luke, so don't know in any detail what he did,... (read more)

Caesium10

When Luke said that, his "aha" moment wasn't that these things existed, it's why they exist. And more importantly, why it's a good idea to focus on that instead of saying "concentrating on looks is vain, a woman should like me for who I am."

I'm curious about this. What was the reason that Luke found for paying attention on fashion, that needed an insight into the reasons people care about fashion? It seems to me that fashions importance depends primarily on how much other people care about it, irrespective of why they care, but I don... (read more)

1falenas108
I would imagine it would depend on the image you're trying to present. Like Luke said, it conveys "large packets of information about [him] at light speed." So, if you're trying to show you have money you would dress one way, trying to look cool would require a different style of dressing, and just hanging casually with friends requires a third. Yes, I agree. I mostly use evo psych explanations to increase my internal probability of a PUA trick actually working, though I'm conservative about the credence I give to any evo psych explanation.
Caesium120

This kind of post symbolizes a lot of what seems wrong to me about LessWrong. Women are attracted to men who they enjoy spending time with? Fashion matters to a lot of women? Women prefer confident men? It amazes me that many extremely intelligent people are unable to make predictions that could be made by the average truck driver. It indicates, I think, that what is lacking in those people is not analytical intelligence. Because of this, I'm deeply sceptical as to what extent applying rationality techniques such as those taught on LessWrong to social inte... (read more)

5jsteinhardt
Your list of objections is less compelling given that Luke explicitly claims that his approach worked extremely well for him. Unless you want to claim that Luke's approach is tailored specifically to him. My attitude towards comments below criticizing Luke for stereotyping women is similar. If the stereotype allowed him to successfully predict behavior, then it seems to be accurate, or at least accurate enough that using it seems instrumentally rational.
-12lucidfox
4Kaj_Sotala
Often true, but note that if you do not understand the reason for some rule, you run the risk of getting into a situation where you think it should apply but it doesn't, or vice versa. I agree with your overall point, however.

Women are attracted to men who they enjoy spending time with? Fashion matters to a lot of women? Women prefer confident men? It amazes me that many extremely intelligent people are unable to make predictions that could be made by the average truck driver.

When Luke said that, his "aha" moment wasn't that these things existed, it's why they exist. And more importantly, why it's a good idea to focus on that instead of saying "concentrating on looks is vain, a woman should like me for who I am."

the hidden assumption, in much of though

... (read more)
Caesium10

It seems to be almost universally held that empathy is a desirable personality trait. I can certainly see that having better theory of mind - being better able to predict other peoples actions - is useful in any situation. But empathy, to me at least, also has connotations of sympathizing with the other person. Whilst I can see that this would be very useful in certain situations (e.g. sexual relationships), it seems to also be potentially harmful in other situations (e.g. management.) For example, firing someone who has been a reliable worker for many ye... (read more)

2falenas108
Empathy would help figure out what signals need faking. Suppose someone's pet dies. You could react in two ways, express sympathy from a similar situation, or help them move on by distracting them with something else. Either could be faked, but empathy would help you figure out which method they would respond to better.
0MixedNuts
You mean sympathy, not empathy. But yeah, humans don't do pure empathy much. (Sociopaths?)
Caesium00

It's acceptable provided that I can accurately measure the outcome. So, I would be willing to e.g. participate in a business venture with payoff (if succesful) of x and known probability p of succeeding provided p*x is better than any other options I have; however, if p is highly uncertain, then I'm wary of it -- I don't trust my judgement, I think it's too easy to be overconfident. I think I could develop a better attitude about risk, however.

Caesium30

Thanks, this sounds like good advice -- I've been concentrating a lot on what external actions I should take, and not on what actions I can take to change myself, but those are at least as important.

I've shunned clichéd things like volunteering at a soup kitchen since they seem to me to be quite low impact activities compared to things such as the SIAI, but they might have a larger impact on my self identity than donations to charities, which I've neglected to consider.

Caesium50

I'm willing to work hard, but I'd prefer to demonstrate that by completing a task that would have a benefit besides a gain in social status amongst people on the Internet, such as by completing relevant academic work and gaining internships in fields I'm interested in.

Caesium50

I believe that, given my aptitudes, I am best able to make a positive impact on the world by attempting to maximize the money I earn, and donating that. I'm curious how you came to that belief.

I arrived at the belief primarily instinctively, and am not particularly confident in it; I'd be happy to revise it on the basis of any more data I receive.

My rational is, roughly, that most adequately funded philanthropic organisations have no difficulties attracting talent, and sot the number of "doers" is determined primarily by demand-side factors... (read more)

2Wei Dai
That's probably a safe assumption to make in most charitable fields, but not in existential risk reduction. For example, there are not enough qualified candidates for the position of FAI programmer, or to lead the project that Nesov recently suggested. Compare the following hypothetical scenarios: 1. There are qualified candidates for an FAI team ready to go, just waiting for sufficient financial resources. 2. SIAI gets a $1 billion donation tomorrow, but has nobody to hire. Which is easier to remedy? I suspect 1, because people like Peter Thiel can probably be persuaded to donate significantly more money if only they thought FAI had a more realistic chance of success. Come to think of it, your main comparative advantage is that you're young. There are plenty of people in the world who can be donors, but not too many who have realized, at an age like yours, that they should think strategically about how to change the future. Having such a realization can be compared to winning the lottery. It may be that you should aim to be a donor after all, but to do so without thinking very carefully about whether you can specialize in an area that the future will really need, would be to throw away the winning ticket instead of cashing it. (ETA: The above assumes that the main thing that a young person can do that others can't (or can't do as well) is to become a specialist that the future will need badly. But perhaps there are others?)
Caesium80

Well, I'm new here, but I thought I might as well just try it. As far as I can tell, a large segment of LessWrong readers are highly interested in philanthropy, especially existential risk reduction. Given this, there seems to have been surprisingly little discussion as to how to best lead ones life to maximize its positive impact.

Whilst there has been some discussion with regard to selecting between charities, I have seen almost no discussion on choosing between careers, or on how to structure ones life more generally. If the type of rationality taught on... (read more)

8Wei Dai
Not sure if you've already seen them, but here are a few posts that might be relevant: * http://lesswrong.com/lw/546/what_should_i_do/ * http://lesswrong.com/lw/5j7/discussion_pathways_for_the_aspiring_agi/ * http://lesswrong.com/lw/38u/best_career_models_for_doing_research/
9Wei Dai
I'm curious how you came to that belief. For example one possible way might be something like: Or is it more like: Or perhaps: Or something else? (I'm not sure if you've given the question that much thought, or if you just went with instinct, but if it's the former, explaining your thought process might help others make the same decision.)
Caesium20

Do you have any recommendations on how to combat this? Obviously, mixing with groups that reward behaviour you wish to cultivate would be a good first step, but what other steps can one take? Do you think making a concious effort to identify more/feel friendlier towards people whose behaviour you consider laudable would help? This would be a step much more readily made for most people than changing their actual social group.

0pjeby
Combat what, precisely? Being human? ;-) (Honestly, though, I'm not clear from your questions what it is that you're trying to accomplish.)
Caesium20

The beliefs of other people are evidence of some fashion. In some cases (e.g. scientific consensus), a belief being widely held is a very strong signal of correctness. In other cases (e.g. religion), less so.

Of course, our social instinct to conform do not take into account the reliability of the beliefs of the group that one is part of -- although, they do take into account whether you identify yourself as part of that group, which gives one some control (only identify yourself with groups that have a good track-record of correctness.)

I'd be hesitant to c... (read more)