Related to: Lessons from Latter-day Saints, Building Rationalist Communities overview, Holy Books (Or Rationalist Sequences) Don't Implement Themselves
My thesis:
It doesn’t matter what ideas are conveyed on Less Wrong, or in LW meetings -- the subset that matters is what group members resolved to do. Discussion of these 'resolves', and people's experience doing them, is useful in creating an expectation that people level up their skills.
Intelligent discussion of ideas is always refreshing. But translating that into action is more difficult.
Our learned reflexes are deep. They need to be overridden. How? Practice.
One woman I taught in India, we’ll call her Girija, was 35 years old, extremely intelligent and really wanted to change her life but had incredibly low levels of self-confidence. Every time we met Girija, we’d have a really sharp discussion, followed by her pouring her heart out to us. It was the same every time, and though we enjoyed the visits, and the food she would feed us, she never seemed to be getting anywhere.
If she really wanted to fundamentally change her life, our weekly meetings weren’t enough. (Similarly, weekly meetups are a good start, but if you really want to be learning rationality you should be practicing every day.)
We felt that if Girija spent some time every day with her 9 year old daughter and live-in boyfriend, reading the scriptures together, they would be happier. We explained this to her frequently, and she said she would start -- but she never did it.
One week, through cleverly calling Girija and chatting for 10 minutes every day, we got her to do it. After the week was over, we asked her how it went.
“You know, it was really good,” she said. “Sandeep and I have been getting along a lot better this week because we did that.”
It was like a light had turned on in her head. Because we followed up, she did it, and was far more motivated to do more things afterwards.[1]
Let me give two simple examples of goal, project, and follow-up.[2]
- GOAL: To become better at noticing logical fallacies as they are being uttered
- PROJECT: A certain Less Wrong group could watch a designated hour of C-SPAN -- or a soap opera, or a TV show -- and try to note down all the fallacies.
- FOLLOW-UP: Discuss this on a designated thread. Afterwards, compile the arguments and link to the file, so that anyone in the LW community can repeat this on their own and check against your conclusions. Reflect communally at your next LW meeting.
- GOAL: To get into less arguments about definitions.
- PROJECT: “Ask, "Can you give me a specific example of that?" or "Can you be more concrete?" in everyday conversations.” Make a challenging goal about how much you will do this – this is pretty low-hanging fruit.
- FOLLOW-UP: Write instances in your journal. Share examples communally at your next LW meeting.
I came up with these in about five minutes. Having spent more time in the community than me, you will all be able to generate more and better possibilities.
Some points about Projects:
- Here are some ideas that can easily be made into Projects. Thanks commenters on the last post.
- Projects don't have to be group-based, but groups motivate doing stuff.
- Projects should be more short than the above linked posts. The above Goal/Project/Follow-Up kernels are 85 and 57 words, respectively. Brevity is key to implementation.
- There is currently no central database of Rationality Projects or people's experiences trying to implement them. (Correct me if I'm wrong here.)
- Feedback on implementation is essential for improving practices.
Finally, a really 'low-cost' way to make a project and follow up. Right before the conclusion of a Less Wrong group, give everyone a slip of paper and ask them to write down one thing they are going to do differently next week as a result of the discussion. For two minutes (total) at the beginning of the next meeting, let people tell what they did.
Some notes and warnings:
Doing this in a fraternalistic manner, not a paternalistic manner, will be a key to success.[3] Community agreement that We Should Do This is important before launching a Project.
Beware of the following tradeoff:
- implementing Projects will alienate some people. Even if projects are determined by consensus, there will be some people who don’t want to do any Project, and they will feel marginalized and excluded.
- not implementing Projects, people will improve their Rationality skills at a far slower pace. [4] You will thus run afoul of Bhagwat’s Law of Commitment: “The degree to which people identify with your group is directly proportional to the amount of stuff you tell them to do that works." But ultimately, commitment drives growth. More leadership to organize stuff, more people bringing friends, and so on.
I will discuss this more later, along with possible solutions. Latter-day Saints, with a large emphasis on doing things, have high levels of commitment; however, there are definitely people who would come to church more if they were expected to do less.
Please post any ideas you have for Projects in the comments.
[1] Even subtracting the religious element, common goals reduce conflict.
[2] Here are some keys to following up that I learned. In two years, I probably applied this on about 600 people:
- Following up is mere nagging (and equally ineffective) unless the person/group actually wanted to do the task in the first place.
- Congratulating people when they did do something was far more important than expressing disappointment when they didn’t do it – the 80/20 rule applies.
- I often felt afraid to ask someone if they had done what they promised to do, because they probably hadn’t, and I didn’t know what I should say then.
- But awkwardness is contagious; if you act awkward when talking to someone, the other person will feel awkward too. Be genuinely excited, and they will also reflect this.
- It’s all about how you ask the question. “How did you like reading X?” is far better than “Did you read X?”. Use humor and make the task seem easy to do.
- Don’t be self-righteous; actively deprecate yourself if necessary.
- Each person has different ways they like – and don’t like – being followed-up with.
[3] Coming from my experience as a Latter-day Saint missionary, my personal examples are all fairly paternalistic. With tweaks, they can all be made fraternalistic. The sentiment has been expressed that “I don’t like people telling me what to do”; this will avoid that pitfall.
[4] I say 'far slower' based on my missionary experience. When people were dedicated to specific projects, they seemed to improve a lot faster.
Today I will present a coherent and cogent case for Eliezer being a crook and a con-artist. This is not for the purpose of defaming him but to show that he is wasting your money and your time. I realize that SIAI has been evaluated by an ignoramus already I am merely filling in the gaps.
I will present facts and the proper citations in text. Let's begin:
NOTE: all sources are direct quotes from Eliezer's mouth either video or text.
Facts Eliezer (here after referred to as DMF) claims of himself: IQ: 143 (no mention of the test administered if it was Catell then the score can be properly converted to 126) Highest Percentile Score: 9.9998 (no mention of the test that he saw the score on) DMF learned calculus at age 13. Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eWvZLYcous
Math Ability: "I was a spoiled math prodigy as a child..."
"[Marcello math work] ...That’s not right" and maybe half the time it will actually be wrong. And when I’m feeling inadequate I remind myself that having mysteriously good taste in final results is an empirically verifiable talent, at least when it comes to math."
Source: http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/this-weeks-finds-week-311/
Standard Workday: When writing: 2-3 hours writing then a couple hours off When doing FAI work: 2-3 hours work then break then 2-3 hours with a day off before repeating (During down time math may be studied, did not sound like that happened very much.) Blogging: 1 post per day sometimes 2 posts they do not seem to exceed 12 pages from what I have seen. Source: http://www.youtube.com/user/michaelgrahamrichard#p/u/26/9kI1IxOrJAg
Admission by DMF: DMF admits to a weakness of will. Source: http://www.youtube.com/user/michaelgrahamrichard#p/u/26/9kI1IxOrJAg
Publications Officially Listed: "In 2001, he published the first technical analysis of motivationally stable goal systems, with his book-length Creating Friendly AI: The Analysis and Design of Benevolent Goal Architectures. In 2002, he wrote "Levels of Organization in General Intelligence," a paper on the evolutionary psychology of human general intelligence, published in the edited volume Artificial General Intelligence (Springer, 2006). He has two papers in the edited volume Global Catastrophic Risks (Oxford, 2008), "Cognitive Biases Potentially Affecting Judgment of Global Risks" and "AI as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk." Source: http://singinst.org/aboutus/team
Claims About the FAI Problem: "My current sense of the problems of self-modifying decision theory is that it won’t end up being Deep Math, nothing like the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem—that 95% of the progress-stopping difficulty will be in figuring out which theorem is true and worth proving, not the proof." Source: http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/this-weeks-finds-week-311/
AI Related Projects Started: Flare Source: http://flarelang.sourceforge.net/ Abandoned Flare: JB, ditched Flare years ago. (2008) Source: http://lesswrong.com/lw/tf/dreams_of_ai_design/msj A legacy of pre-2003 Eliezer, of no particular importance one way or another. Source: http://lesswrong.com/lw/15z/ingredients_of_timeless_decision_theory/121t
DMF Discounted LOGI: "LOGI's out the window, of course, as anyone who's read the arc of LW could very easily guess." Source: http://lesswrong.com/lw/1hn/call_for_new_siai_visiting_fellows_on_a_rolling/1av0
Stated Job Description and Plan: "Eliezer Yudkowsky: My job title is Research Fellow, but I often end up doing things other than research. Right now I’m working on a book on human rationality (current pace is around 10,000-13,000 words/week for a very rough first draft, I’m around 150,000 words in and halfway done with the rough draft if I’m lucky). When that’s done I should probably block out a year to study math and then go back to Artificial Intelligence theory, hopefully ever after (until the AI theory is done, then solid AI development until the AI is finished, et cetera)." Source: http://hplusmagazine.com/2010/07/21/simplified-humanism-positive-futurism-how-prevent-universe-being-turned-paper-clips/
How Is He a Crook? DMF claims that he mastered calculus at 13 and is a math prodigy what evidence is there for this claim? Papers: The only paper with any degree of math albeit simple math is "An Intuitive Explanation of Bayes' Theorem" Source: http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes What about his quantum physics posts? Source: http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/ Never once does DMF solve the wave equation nor does DMF solve a single derivative or integral equation the following list are most of posts with any math in them: http://lesswrong.com/lw/pe/joint_configurations/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q0/entangled_photons/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q2/spooky_action_at_a_distance_the_nocommunication/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q4/decoherence_is_falsifiable_and_testable/ The other posts contain amusing graphs many hand-drawn and pseudo math: http://lesswrong.com/lw/pl/no_individual_particles/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/pk/feynman_paths/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/pj/the_quantum_arena/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/pi/classical_configuration_spaces/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/pp/decoherence/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/pq/the_socalled_heisenberg_uncertainty_principle/ (amusing pseudo math) http://lesswrong.com/lw/pu/on_being_decoherent/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/pz/decoherence_as_projection/ If DMF mastered calculus at 13 then why is there no evidence in any of these posts? If DMF is a math prodigy; who is good at explaining math; why no explanation of the wave equation? He does mention it in his timeless physics post but it appears that he took his description from wikipedia, since there are some striking similarities. It is one thing to talk with math jargon such a derivatives and gradients its another thing entirely to be able to actually use those ideas so solve an equation or model a system. DMF has shown no evidence that he can do such things.
This critique is so poor that I think there's a nonzero chance that you're a plant.