All of cleonid's Comments + Replies

7Fluttershy
The title of the article on charity seems clickbait-y to me. I think that if a charity had negative utility, that would imply that burning a sum of money would be preferable to donating that money to that charity. However, this is not the thesis of the article; instead, the article's thesis is:
4Gunslinger
Gives me the Wellkept Gardens Die by Pacifism feel. How isomorphic is society and online communities? Can the Wellkept Gardens argument be applied that liberally?

There are two noticeable differences between the optimate/populare and the traditional left-wing/right-wing politics:

1) Traditional politics is much better approximated by a binary. Person’s views on one significant issue, such as feminism, pretty accurately predict positions on foreign policy, economics and environmental issues. By comparison, optimate/populare labels have much less predictive power. While there is a significant correlation between populare (optimate) and left (right)-wing views on economics and foreign policy, both optimates and popular... (read more)

0passive_fist
I'm not sure what VoA should do beyond what it already does. It already provides a wide range of free programming to the world in a bunch of different languages. The programming - so far as I've seen it - is terrible and completely unconvincing for foreigners. On the other hand, home-grown youtube networks like The Young Turks seem to already have a large following from non-American viewers, despite being targeted towards Americans, and seem to do a much more effective job in exporting Western values to people who don't already believe in them.
3username2
A question about Omnilibrium. The FAQ states So what beliefs generally cluster the optimates and populares? I've been wondering this, and it seems fairly opaque as an outside observer, but I'm sure that people who regularly use the site have picked up on it.
9Viliam
There are intelligent people speaking, without attacking each other. When they add facts, I am going to suppose those facts are likely true. That's already better than 99.99% of internet. Yet there seems to be no conclusion, and even the analysis seems rather shallow.
0passive_fist
Evidence? This is LessWrong. Based on what I've read and the contents of the IPCC report, the match between models and climate change has been pretty good so far, actually.

If the number of extended discussions is uncorrelated with the post's karma (except maybe for strongly downvoted posts), and the number of extended discussion comments dominates the number of total comments, then that is evidence that correlations between the number of total comments and the post's karma are spurious.

If the number of extended discussions is uncorrelated with the post's karma, then they would simply add a random noise component to the graph. I think it’s pretty obvious from the graph that the signal to noise ratio is quite high.

That would require a non-trivial amount of work. Is there a particular reason you are interested in this?

0Elo
I am interested in the worthyness of a post as measured by the number of comments it gets, as well as the karma. Trying to squeeze some juice of metric out of the data we have available. For some reason I figured that it wouldn't be a lot of work, people have made a word-counted VS karma before (but for comments). If it's too much effort then don't worry about it.

The former would count many extended discussions that often have little to do with the OP.

Is there a reason to think that the number of extended discussions that have little to do with the OP is higher for articles with negative karma? If not, counting the total number or just the top-level comments should not affect the conclusions.

there are more than just two opposite or pro/con positions, and many more things to say on a subject than "yes" or "no"

Solving the problem for a simple binary case is a starting point in our tests.

0DanArmak
If the number of extended discussions is uncorrelated with the post's karma (except maybe for strongly downvoted posts), and the number of extended discussion comments dominates the number of total comments, then that is evidence that correlations between the number of total comments and the post's karma are spurious. But that simple case isn't a representative or typical one...
cleonid20

I don’t think this is possible.

Tay-Sachs allele used to slightly increase evolutionary fitness in heterozygotes (i.e. people who carry just one Tay-Sachs allele). This allowed the allele to increase in frequency until ~3% of Ashkenazis became its carriers. But once the local frequency becomes high enough the negative effects (the risk that a random couple produces children with two Tay-Sachs alleles) balance the positive effects on fitness. Thus in any region it should be impossible for Tay-Sachs to be common for all the grandparents.

cleonid10

There is some reinforcement, but it’s not very significant.

For example, consider an Ashkenazi Tay-Sachs carrier who marries a person from China. If their children mate, the chance that the grandchildren would have Tay-Sachs disease is (1/2)^4=1/16. If instead of a Chinese, this Ashkenazi Tay-Sachs carrier marries another Ashkenazi (who have ~0.03 chance of being a carrier), the chance that the grandchildren would have Tay-Sachs disease is almost the same, ~1/16*1.12. In absence of incest, a grandchild of a Tay-Sachs carrier would have a ~0.03/8 (i.e. ~17 times smaller) chance for getting the disease.

0NancyLebovitz
Ashkenazi Jews is too large a category. Try Ashkenazi Jews from a region where Tay Sachs is common for all the grandparents.
cleonid10

I don’t understand why the origin of grandparents should matter.

To the best of my knowledge, the main problem with incest is recessive alleles. For example, if the grandfather’s genotype is ”aA” (where “a” is a very rare recessive allele) and his children (parents’ generation) mate with each other, then there is a relatively high chance (1/16) that the grandchildren would be of “aa” genotype (which might be extremely deleterious or even lethal). Having another grandparent from a different continent should not change this.

0NancyLebovitz
Why wouldn't having grandparents from different continents make rare alleles less likely to be reinforced?
cleonid00

True, but it is virtually impossible to see a meaningful pattern when you have thousands data points on the graph and R2<0.2.

0Douglas_Knight
I disagree. I find point clouds useful, as long as they are not pure black. Kernel density plots are better, though. But Lumifer gave you a concrete suggestion: plot a regression curve, not a bunch of buckets. Bucketing and drawing lines between points are kinds of smoothing, so you should instead use a good smoothing. Say, loess. Just use ggplot and trust its defaults. (not loess with this many points)
0Lumifer
Well, one question is if it's "impossible to see a meaningful pattern", should you melt-and-recast the data so that the pattern appears X-/ Another observation is that you are constrained by Excel. R can deal with such problems easily -- do you have the raw dataset available somewhere?
cleonid20

Each point on the graph corresponds to an average of several hundred (about two thousand for the middle graph) data points. A number of short posts is indeed greater than the number of long posts, so the horizontal distance between the points on the graph increases with increasing number of characters.

5Lumifer
Any particular reason you did a plot this way instead of having a cloud of points and drawing some kind of regression line or curve through? You are unnecessarily losing information by aggregating into buckets.
cleonid30

You can get the rating statistics of your LW comments by registering on Omnilibrium and then clicking on this link.

4Stingray
Admit it, this whole post is a secret ploy to get more people to register to Omnilibrium :)
cleonid50

It’s an interesting possibility. But I have looked at the data and for all ten users the comments above 1000 characters get higher average ratings than shorter comments.

0gjm
Aha, excellent.
cleonid50

Would statistical feedback on the style and content of your posts be useful to you?

[pollid:1010]

0[anonymous]
I liked it for the sheer level of awesomeness of investing work to analyse comments, and I like the reminder how really chaotic stuff can be quantified as well, but I find comments not really that important, important stuff tends to be rewritten as a post, so I treat them more as just a discussion. Similar to chatting about a post in person. However if you want to know the usefulness, I think depends on whether you care about upvotes. I care about them only in a negative way, I tend to recycle usernames on Reddit when they get too much karma although I have not done it here yet. I don't think if I would optimize my upvotes it would also result in optimizing the usefulness of my comments for others. If anything, the number of replies I get is a better measure, blatantly stupid stuff usually gets ignored, if something gets answered a lot then at the very least it is wrong in an interesting way. I mean, for example here, I think the fact that I reply to your post and survey hopefully means more to you than if I just hit the upvote button. Same story.
1Gunnar_Zarncke
I would have preferred a weaker option like "It might be interesting,and it might conceivably help me to improve my posts".
0NancyLebovitz
I don't know whether feedback would affect how I post. It would depend on whether the feedback made sense to me and whether it pointing in a direction of something I thought I could do and was worth doing.
2James_Miller
I strongly disagree with the True Islam post. Definitions are neither true nor false, but useful or not useful. It's extremely useful for Western leaders to define Islam so that ISIS is not part of it.
tut100

What is Omnilibrium? What are these links about? If this comment is a reply to something or making a point, what?

cleonid40

as people believe in fundamentally different political values and philosophies they cannot really make a lot of progress towards a consensus on the object level

At least in theory, it may be possible for people to find common objectives even when their values are fundamentally different. For instance, some conservatives support raising the minimum wage on the ground that it reduces the number of low-skill jobs and deters illegal immigration.

I would probably add a historical debate section as well.

History is already included as one of the main sectio... (read more)

-2VoiceOfRa
If you really want a topic where people with very different values and world views agree, look at the attitude towards Greece defaulting. There you can find people arguing that a Greek default would be good because it will lead to X which is good according to my values, and others arguing that a Greek default would be good because it will lead to not X which is good according to my values.
cleonid00

I’m sure there will be some correlations but I would not know what to do with them. Traits like conscientiousness have no obvious connection to my question. Openness to new experiences is sometimes used as a proxy for open-mindedness, but to me this seems a little farfetched. Is there a strong reason to believe that an adventurous eater will be more open-minded on political questions?

cleonid00

Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that my own data is totally wrong and consider the same question for a purely hypothetical case:

Group A upvotes only its own comments. Group B upvotes preferentially its own comments. Is there a way to tell whether the difference lies in the comment quality or the characters of the group members?

0OrphanWilde
I'd say your hypothetical case is undecidable on multiple levels, starting with how to determine comment quality in the first place, the very definition of which may vary between Group A and Group B.
0ChristianKl
If you measure the personality via a big 5 personality test you can see whether the ratings correlate.
cleonid00

Suppose people are divided by some arbitrary criteria (e.g., blondes vs. brunettes) and then it turns out that blondes upvote brunettes much more often than vice versa. You could still ask the same question.

Regarding elevation, I simply wanted a short and easy to understand title and it did not occur to me that it would be perceived as prejudicial.

0OrphanWilde
Except in this case you're grouping on the same behavior you're measuring - given that you're doing statistical analysis on what is essentially traffic-analysis grouped data, I can't think of a trivial example to compare to. That's bound to lead to some variable dependency issues. And I think you did realize that, given your care in not naming names or sides, but I'm not attacking you, I'm suggesting you should be cautious in taking conclusions. You want to measure - so you're not taking it as a given, which is good skepticism - but you skipped skepticism of your techniques.
2OrphanWilde
Without looking at the data, I couldn't say with certainty what the dominant cause is, but I can reasonably confidently say that your clustering algorithm, with its built-in assumption of a roughly even divide on both sides of its vectors, is responsible for at least part of it. The prime issue is that you are algorithmically creating the data - the clusters - you're drawing inferences on. Your algorithm should be your most likely candidate for -any- anomalies. You definitely shouldn't get attached to any conclusions, especially if they're favorable to the group of people you more closely identify with. (It's my impression that the "open-mindedness" conclusion -is- favorable to the people you identify with, given that you give it higher elevation than the possibility that the opposing side is producing better arguments.)
cleonid00

The word “better” may be replaced with “more coherent” or even “more grammatically correct”. Fundamentally, the question is whether the difference in ratings arises from the difference in the comment qualities (other than political orientation) or from the difference in those who rate them.

is it possible that the way you are choosing "principal vectors" is entangled with how the resulting clusters rate?

The system chooses vectors automatically. But I think the above question would still be valid even if people were divided in two groups in some totally arbitrary way.

2OrphanWilde
Okay, why have you elevated the hypothesis of open-mindedness?
cleonid00

In the "optimate" vs "populare" case, the difference was significant at about 2.5 sigmas. I don't remember the exact values in the "left" vs "right" case, but it was over 10 sigmas.

cleonid00

Would your algorithm sort the people who don't strongly agree with either side with the "optimates", since their preferences are closer to the "optimate" group than the "populare" group?

In principle, this is possible. The system assigns each user a number corresponding to his/her position on the “left-right” (“populare-optimate”) axis. If, based on their votes, 25% of users are assigned “-10”, 50% are assigned “10” and 25% are assigned “0”, then the average is “2.5” which would make those with “0” into “left-wingers”.

wou

... (read more)
0OrphanWilde
Is it correct to say that you're basing your assignment of each user into the two categories based on the same variable you're analyzing - the distribution (or more specifically the clustering) of the votes? (My reading suggests the system is producing the vectors you're noticing based on clustering, and then you're naming the vectors?)
cleonid10

As I’ve written above, the two groups may not be representative of the LW community or the US population. But within each group the differences were statistically significant, so the question about their origin would be valid in any case.

0ChristianKl
If the significant means statistical significance, then what's the p-value?
cleonid00

Sure.

The system assigns “left-wing” and “right-wing” (“populare” and “optimate”) labels by comparing user’s preferences to the average preferences of all users, so both sides are nearly equal. In any case, the 27% difference was in the proportions of positive votes, not in the absolute numbers of upvotes.

0OrphanWilde
Let's say 25% of your users are inherently "optimate", 50% are inherently "populare", and 25% aren't really either. Would your algorithm sort the people who don't strongly agree with either side with the "optimates", since their preferences are closer to the "optimate" group than the "populare" group? And would that produce the effect you're seeing, since half the "optimate" group are upvoting more or less equally?
cleonid20

It is similarity based.

cleonid20

One essential difference is that our recommendation system is guided by the individual rather than the group preferences. Reddit is based on finding the lowest common denominator.

cleonid30

I don't know how it works but if you have user buckets for basic political denominations

Users’ preferences are determined based on how they rate content, not on how they self-label.

In saying that a probability is used doesn't tell anythign on what the probability is based on. It just tells me that the result is a sliding scale between 0 and 1 but doesn't tell me whether it's a completely made up number.

I don’t think users need to know the actual equations (especially since the math is somewhat complicated). But they would easily find out if the num... (read more)

cleonid30

Also, how long does it take until I receive the authentication email?

Sorry for the confusion.

To avoid cold start, we wanted to sign up a sufficiently large group of people before opening the discussions. The site is scheduled to be opened on May 1 (you’ll receive an email notification).

There doesn't seem to be a way to propose new or non-traditional discussion topics

the discussion seems to be US-centric

The site is not officially open yet. So far, we just had several test runs with randomly selected people.

cleonid00

Sorry for the confusion.

To avoid cold start, we wanted to sign up a sufficiently large group of people before opening the discussions. The site is scheduled to be opened on May 1 (you’ll receive an email notification).

cleonid10

You raise very relevant points. I’ll try to address them without getting too technical.

the bonudary drawing is a moderation choice

Our recommendation system estimates the probability that a user A will like a comment B. It is then a personal choice of a user A to decide what is the right threshold (read all comments, ignore comments rated below 60%, etc.).

Another naive failure mode is that if a user is as a whole bucketed as good or bad.

We use a bit more sophisticated method.

it's hard to impossible to differentiate within a subject area

I’m ... (read more)

2Slider
I don't know how it works but if you have user buckets for basic political denominations (as somewhat suggested by your use of language) then the buckets determine whos posts will compete for the same audiences. That is if the groups are not formed by some dynamics and in that way be either based on user choice or some "fair" mechanism then the decision on what buckets there exist is a moderation choice. That is do we recognise subcategories of libertarians? There can be charged terms like "free market" or "socialism" that might have (semi)-standardised meanings within a group (ie for some socialism might mean anything they don't like that vaguely smells like red, while for others it migth be a spesific political line within the left spectrum different from other leftist ideologies). While it would be good discussion practise to always be certain that the sense used is sufficently clear, if you have a bucket that often uses the same terms with slight deviations having that group of persons as one bucket (ie all libertarians) makes differentiating between the senses harder, while having it as multiple buckets (ie each kind of libertarian as it's won kind) avoids forming as wide stereotypes (but then there is the diffculty of keeping up with the "thought zoo"). In saying that a probability is used doesn't tell anythign on what the probability is based on. It just tells me that the result is a sliding scale between 0 and 1 but doesn't tell me whether it's a completely made up number. What is the reference class used in the "liked cases per viewed cases" estimation? For example I could use a weighted average of denomination score, author score and recommendation score. Now there are many weightings and details about how to turn individual recommendations in to a recommendation score, but I could be sceptical for this method of score keeping in that it's just a averaging of naive methods. No amount of weighting could get rid of the strucutres it inherits, we could only
cleonid70

The website is intended for discussion of all ideologically divisive issues that are currently avoided on LW (economic policies, historical analysis etc.).

0[anonymous]
Economic policies and historical analysis are not avoided on LW and are totally on-topic. Politics is avoided and would be off-topic. Do you understand the difference?
cleonid00

Among other things, it will include an individualized recommendation system. In a political debate, the regular upvotes & downvotes system has many problems (for instance, it encourages partisanship).

cleonid30

2) We are thinking of creating a new format for the discussions (based on the principles of collaborative filtering) that will be less vulnerable to various mind-killing mechanisms.

1Dahlen
How would it differ from LW-style upvotes & downvotes?
cleonid10

Recently several people suggested opening a separate website for rational (or Less Irrational) discussion of political issues. If such a website is created, will you be interested in participating?

[pollid:845]

0Elo
as a definite no voter, the usefulness is not aimed at me, thats fine. you won't see me there. But it looks like there exists some interest.

Slate Star Codex fulfills this niche for me.

7Vaniver
There was, at one point, an invite-only mailing list to discuss mind-killing issues. It did not see much use, and I am fundamentally pessimistic about forums that are open to the public that discuss politics.
9Dahlen
1) Will its name be another pun on "Less Wrong", like it happened with More Right? 2) I still don't understand why it wouldn't simply be easier to create more subreddits for LW on different discussion topics, like it has been proposed a billion times in the past, as opposed to more and more websites springing up.
cleonid00

Sorry it was not sufficiently clear, but this is precisely the point I was trying to make in that paragraph. The real question was not whether the deterring force would be needed (obviously it would), but how to organize it effectively. In particular, how to solve the free rider problem which is intrinsic to all military coalitions?

cleonid20

Naturally, political systems which require no one to defect are unworkable. But what makes you think that defection is an insolvable problem in this particular system? Just like individual people can act jointly against aggressive criminals, individual states/provinces/communities can act jointly against aggressive regimes.

2alienist
My point is that you can't simply rely on other countries having reached a "sufficiently advanced economic or mental stage" to stop defection. You do actually need to rely on force.
cleonid00

Violence exists not out of necessity, but basically because we like it.

This is similar to sex and reproduction. Animals reproduce not because they consciously want offspring, but because they enjoy the process itself. Likewise, violence is often enjoyed for its own sake, rather than for its material rewards. However, for humans the invention of contraceptives made it possible to decouple reproduction from sex. Similarly, once violence becomes unnecessary people will still find it enjoyable, but it may be possible to replace the actual violence with surr... (read more)

cleonid00

In fact, with territory size kept constant, many of the people in positions of power might welcome emigration for the increase in land availability.

This is true for undeveloped countries where arable land and natural resources are still main economic assets.

It does seem like it would be easiest to just allocate each nation total_habitable_land(nation_population/total_population)desired_proportion_of_natural_reserves.

There is an old tradition of trying to settle territorial disputes based on general idealistic principles. “Legitimacy” was a very popu... (read more)

0mako yass
Unless you've chosen a poor sample of the evidence you're familiar with, your opinion is not going to stop anyone from following their fatuous curiosity, here. The historical cases you refer to seem a couple orders of magnitude more fraught with the spooks of subjective indignation than anything anyone in this community would propose. When an analytic philosopher looks at these things they don't see decision procedures that should have worked in theory but failed, they don't see decision procedures at all, they see disagreements in waiting. I agree that any morally loaded criterion for deciding land reallocations is going to trip over the subjectivity of morality as we know it, especially in a system that's explicitly designed to support the sovereignty of diverse groups. I believe we can at least come up with a negotiation procedure that returns immediate, unambiguous results that do a pretty okay job of cleaning up vacated territories. I'll call this one Simultaneous Haggle Reallocation. Let's say that in each term, each state must submit a preference ordering on the areas just outside their border, in neighboring states, and an ordering on the areas just inside their border. The outside list describes the places they'll take if their population increases in proportion to their neighbors, the inside list is the places they'll lose if their population decreases, all in order of their desire to hold them. The top elements of the inside list will be the areas the state most wants to keep. The top of the outside list will be the areas they most want to take. If there is a mutually agreeable way forward to be made, an area they're happy to lose that their neighbor very much wants, or an area they wont part with for cultural reasons that their neighbor doesn't share, that is the trade that will be made. Kind of unfortunate though.. Above, I provided a formula that assumes an objective(or at least shared) measure of what constitutes habitable land, or, in a more soph
Load More