This is "inattention blindness". Choice blindness is sort of like the opposite; in inattention blindness you don't notice something you're not paying attention to, in choice blindness you don't notice something which you are paying attention to.
The video shows the mechanics of how it works pretty well.
What's the name of the principle that variance increases further from 50%?
75% choose program A
I, for one, really like it.
Glad you like it. There are zillions more where that came from
What if I want to write, then sell it? Something that might be achievable could be like what Skeptic's Dictionary or You Are Not So Smart did, they started out as websites that slowly filled out and were ultimately published as books.
(Why isn't there a Singularity Institute Press?)
Vastly, vastly more likely.
Everyone once in awhile someone sends me a link to an article on wikipedia saying I would find it interesting... and as a matter of fact, I found it especially interesting: I wrote it!
Or, I added a quote to Daniel Kahneman's page that has since appeared in almost every bio of Kahneman that I've seen since. For example, David Brooks wrote a column on Kahneman a few months ago and used the same exact quote I added, so that's millions of people indirectly.
Boggles the mind, really.
Criticism is totally fair. I was getting frustrated with it, so I decided to get something done quickly that I could replace later. So, there are flaws.
It's supposed to stop cycling if you mouseover it.
yup, that's mine too
I wrote all of them
An upvote doesn't seem like nearly enough for this. A very sincere thanks for the hard work.
Holy shmorkies. Thanks and congratulations!
Heuristics in Heuristics and Biases are only descriptive. [...] Heuristics in Heuristics and biases are defined as having negative side effects.
If your claim is that heuristics are defined by H&B theorists as being explicitly not prescriptive, in the sense of never being "good" or "useful," this is simply not the case.
No, no, that's not what I'm saying. The claim that heuristics have negative side effects does not entail a claim that negative side effects are the only characteristics they have. The 'side effect' terminology mi...
Fast and Frugal heuristics can be descriptive (meaning human beings naturally use them at some level) or prescriptive (here are some good heuristics you can learn to use). Heuristics in Heuristics and Biases are only descriptive.
The Heuristics and Biases theorists would never suggest someone should try to "use" one of their heuristics, nor probably could you even if you tried. You could not intentionally reproduce the pattern of cognitive biases that their heuristics allegedly cause, many appear to be irretrievably outside of conscious awareness ...
That's a valid opinion. There is only a subtle difference really so maybe it's not the best example
You did not answer the question. How are they different?
I've re-instated twitter so far. The issues are: general visual clutter, I found a way to mitigate this issue by using a trick to force lower the visual contrast of the buttons, and that these social buttons often really slow down the loading of the page, especially if you want the dynamic share/like/retweet counters for every item. I might leave the counter on twitter but omit it for the others and see what the page load is like.
I'm not sure what email-sharing service to use... facebook has one in its "share" button, there are probably others.
I've thought of ways of working around this. There are ways of actually defeating the truncation. One issue is that there isn't necessarily an obvious programmatic way of telling which feeds are truncated and which aren't.
For now, try out this feed proxy: http://andrewtrusty.appspot.com/readability/ , e.g. http://andrewtrusty.appspot.com/readability/feed?url=http%3A//feeds.feedburner.com/planetrationalist
Hmm, I was wondering how much people used those things. Do you want just twitter + email? Facebook?
To be completely honest, I wasn't going on a strict definition of the term rationalist; frankly I consider the term kind of flawed anyway. But I don't have a better replacement in mind. For me it means being interested in being rational, being interested in how the mind works, being interested in cognitive biases, Bayes' rule, probability, statistics, logical fallacies, and scientific self-improvement.
Options for now:
Out of curiosity, what don't you want to see and why?
Meaning you want to turn some sources off?
Yeah I couldn't think of one.
Favicon contest?
May not have been just you, I suspect my ISP was having problems earlier.
I agree that some kind of filtering (human or machine) could provide additional value, but at this stage I want to see how well the most rudimentary version of the idea works for people before investing further.
Thanks a lot!
I will limit aggregation to the Critical Thinking category as you suggest.
Thanks, added.
Thanks there are some good ones there.
If it's not strictly related but likely of interest to the same people that are interested in rationality (e.g. credible self-improvement) then it's better if posts aren't that frequently. For instance, there's a lot of good stuff in hacker news but there's 100+ front-page posts per day and it would drown everything else out.
If the aggregator proves popular I could introduce a text-classification filter to try to only include relevant posts from sources with varied content, but I'm only willing to invest time in that if it turns out that people are responsive to the aggregator in its current simpler form.
Yes, I'll do that. I've been looking for places to announce it/request feedback.
I'm working on a rationality blog aggregator, and should be ready to make it public in the next few days. Would you like to know when it is released?
I can sort of see how a woman might find such a thing just a tad creepy.
In many cases perhaps the appropriate action would be raise this woman's consciousness: men's sexuality isn't necessarily scary or threatening.
I don't necessarily agree with Nussbaum, I just thought it was interesting and related.
There is ample stuff that's perhaps more empirical
Is it out of bounds to consider plain and simple prejudice as the trigger?
Disgust reactions are frequently based on prejudices that should be challenged and rebutted. People frequently describe male sexuality in strikingly similar ways to how prejudiced people describe (typically male) homosexuality. You know, it's disgusting, it's ridiculous, it's wrong in some indescribable way, it's threatening and dangerous in some abstract, unfalsifiable sense. Except it's not taboo to talk about male heterosexuality that way. Men are pigs, after all, and that they wa...
Twitter account: http://twitter.com/plntrationalist