|
Well we do have proof that HBD leads to lovely attitudes, if you take a look at every single thing they say about cop violence and the racial tensions that result. Oh wait, LW has agreed to ignore that, cool, I forgot.
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:04 |
|
|
The day I realized "post-rationalists" are not worth defending was the day I saw all the reactos start saying blatantly sociopathic things about the Trayvon Martin verdict, and all the post-rationalists remaining completely silent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
LessWrong realises it's probably useless now, discusses plans to deal with this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Just for the record, there probably isn't any psychological (plus anthropological, economic and sociological) research in the world that's better than Kahneman (& Tversky)'s work leading up to the system 1/system 2 story. My own pet psychological theory comes out of a line from Robert Anton Wilson: "What the thinker thinks, the prover proves." In other words, once you're convinced of an idea you will find proof for it, and nobody is exempt (though with effort you can at least become aware of the bias existing).
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
Nessus posted:A majestic assertion. I have never heard of it. Give me a capsule summary here. So Confirmation Bias then?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
Luigi's Discount Porn Bin posted:Aww, somebody's been reading Kahneman and thinks they're hot poo poo. I'm a social-cognitive psychologist and am 95% sure that no one who actually works in the field talks remotely like this. Babby's first dual-process model I guess. The worst part is that Sinesalvetorum is the girlfriend of a very nice person I'm mutuals with. They're leftist-leaning while Sinesalvetorum is a libertarian "human biodiversity" proponent. (A rare nonwhite and pro-immigration one, too. She's a native Filipina who got an international scholarship to a Canadian college at, like, 17. She's also bitterly anti-imperialist due to America loving her country over. It's bizarre.) Curvature of Earth has a new favorite as of 17:21 on Dec 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
That literally just sounds like a typical brainy teenager.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Yeah, all teenagers are dumb. Especially the smart ones. This information gives me some optimism about the whole phenomenon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Nessus posted:A majestic assertion. I have never heard of it. Give me a capsule summary here. Here's an example of what I mean:  You see one of psychology's current attempts to check what studies replicate. This is basically sorted by how happy the original authors should be seeing the replications. You see Kahneman is at the top of this graph. Why? Because his research (unlike a lot of what he cites in Thinking, Fast and Slow) is very good. Eliezer actually really likes Kahneman. He doesn't name him a lot, but of the 3 pages of Yud's writing I've seen, 5 mention findings originally by Kahneman. So let's take anchoring. Is the Mississippi shorter than 200 miles? Okay. (Of course, you're right.) How long is the Mississippi? Something like 4 out of 5 people will significantly underestimate the length of the Mississippi when you give them the 200 miles anchor. If I start with an anchor that's too high - say, 200.000 miles - 4 out of 5 people will significantly overestimate the length. And a lot of stuff like that - research that basically founded the field of behavioral economics (via Prospect Theory). Kahneman's main point in the book Thinking, Fast and Slow is that a lot of this research can be roughly summarized as there being two different ways by which humans reason. One - System 1 - is very fast, automatic, intuitive, associative. Quick, what's 432 * 3? Around 1200-1300, right? Good. It's very good, but it also makes errors in very reliable ways, such as anchoring. System 2 is slow, controlled, and if we get it to actually work, more reliable than System 1. What's 432 * 3, exactly? 1200 ... plus 30 * 3 ... plus 3 * 2 ... 1296. Type 2. Okay, that was hard. So we almost always work with System 1. Or, in 1 sentence: usually, you're wrong, but it's usually okay. Yud's take on this is that if you know all of this stuff, you become immune and your super mind can dominate the environment. My take is: usually, you're wrong, but it's usually okay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Is anchoring an error in that case? I'd expect the first question I get (based on background assumptions about the kind of questions people to ask) to be at least somewhat hard, which provides evidence that the Missisippi is around 200mi (or whatever.) I do recall other experiments where it was really irrelevant, like they spun a roulette wheel and that influenced the answers somehow, but not in detail and I can't say whether it was replicated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:So Confirmation Bias then? As for the Kahneman thing, is there a system which investigates if the hypothesis is worthy of close consideration at all? Like what that tumblr guy seemed to be saying is "I look at these detailed analyses of a thing, and it's very detailed and points to their conclusion! Please, can someone present persuasive evidence" (of an unstated and presumably subjective nature) "to the contrary?" I could publish ten thousand studies examining the correlation between the consumption of ice cream on the Jersey shore, and the yearly patterns in drowning deaths, and encourage a debate on whether the problem is ice cream in general or the formulations of tutti frutti being thrown around on the shore; I could introduce the new confounding variable of drowning statistics near an area that only has access to frozen custard vs. another area that only has access to Italian ices... and it's all bullshit, because the correlation has nothing to do with the frozen sugar water people eat before they go dunk themselves into the Atlantic ocean to cool off in the summertime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Oligopsony posted:Is anchoring an error in that case? I'd expect the first question I get (based on background assumptions about the kind of questions people to ask) to be at least somewhat hard, which provides evidence that the Missisippi is around 200mi (or whatever.) But okay, maybe you're an experienced test taker and assume the anchor is actually an unintentional hint. First, the effect also appears where you have to make a fast, purely intuitive guess. Second, it also works when the question is clearly not hard - e.g., when Gandhi died, was he older or younger than 9 years? Third, by your intuition, the effect should be disproportionally pronounced in people with good grades, correct? (Because, as I assume most people who universally get good grades understand, a large component of how well you do on tests is knowing how tests work, cg. Flynn effect) Well, that's actually an interesting and testable hypothesis. If I had a bunch of undergrads at hand right now, I'd throw it at them. Cingulate has a new favorite as of 19:50 on Dec 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Basically, if a little more hippie-dippie wide ranging. But I don't understand the question. The guy - presumably - wanted to convey that intuitively and emotionally, they were originally predisposed against racist hypotheses. That was in response to the part of the original TUMBLR POST that said, scientific racists try to put a polish of supposed facts on top of what is truly just irrational prejudices - that is, the guy said, for them, it was the opposite, with irrational prejudices against racism being overwhelmed by cold hard facts in favour. (I'm not saying that's a reasonable, or even coherent, thing to post, but that's what was posted.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:The point is that even an anchor that's completely irrelevant strongly influences your guess. Could you describe what you mean by irrelevant in this case? Because in the paper being cited, they state (bolding mine): quote:Subjects in the calibration group (n = 53) were recruited first. They were asked to estimate 15 quantities and to rate their confidence in each answer on a 10-point scale. As shown in Table 1, the quantities to be estimated include the height of Mount Everest and the number of members of the United Nations. The 15th and 85th percentile of the distribution of the estimates in the calibration group were used as anchors for the experimental (anchored) groups. I wouldn't consider an anchor chosen under those circumstances to be completely irrelevant, but I'm presuming you have a different meaning in mind?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
moebius2778 posted:Could you describe what you mean by irrelevant in this case? Because in the paper being cited, they state (bolding mine): Bold for emphasis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:There's actually no system at all, they're just metaphors. I think sometimes these arguments kind of abuse intellectual hospitality, with the unspoken assumption that if you don't devote yea amount of time to disproving, refuting, deeply engaging etc. with what is often the same poo poo on, at best, a slightly different platter, you're being dishonest, unfair, granting them their point, etc. So it's damned if you do (because you're giving them credence by engaging with them intellectually or publically debating them, even if it's a tiny sliver of it - "see, proof a controversy exists") or damned if you don't (clearly you just hate science if you aren't engaging with my dumb-rear end paper funded by the Pioneer Fund).
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Cingulate is the rakes, the rest of this thread is Sideshow Bob.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:The article you're quoting reads (first paragraph): "In this context, an anchor is an arbitrary value that the subject is asked to consider before making a numerical estimate." Didn't they also find an anchoring effect even when given a random number that they knew was irrelevant? I recommend "thinking fast and slow", its quite a fun book. It gives me the impression thats being perfectly rational is pretty much impossible, theres always ways for bias to slip in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:The article you're quoting reads (first paragraph): "In this context, an anchor is an arbitrary value that the subject is asked to consider before making a numerical estimate." So, your argument is that because the values were arbitrarily chosen, they must be completely irrelevant? I'm honestly not following, because that's the only thing that seems to follow, but it doesn't make any sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Skittle Prickle posted:Didn't they also find an anchoring effect even when given a random number that they knew was irrelevant? I think there was one where they asked people whether they'd be willing to pay $XX for an item, where XX was the last two digits of their social security number, and that worked as an anchor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Conincidences; Pocket recommended an article by Scott Alexander and one by Scott Adams today. The Scott Adams blog, on Trump, reads: Scott Adams posted:The $10 billion estimate Trump uses for his own net worth is also an “anchor” in your mind. That’s another classic negotiation/persuasion method. I remember the $10 billion estimate because it is big and round and a bit outrageous. And he keeps repeating it because repetition is persuasion too. No comment on what Scott Adams actually writes or thinks here - I'll be damned if I read Scott Adams stuff. But, funny coincidence, right? moebius2778 posted:So, your argument is that because the values were arbitrarily chosen, they must be completely irrelevant? I'm honestly not following, because that's the only thing that seems to follow, but it doesn't make any sense. Skittle Prickle posted:Didn't they also find an anchoring effect even when given a random number that they knew was irrelevant? Nessus posted:Yeah, I'm suggesting this has more to do with the guy being credulous (possibly due to being a child; this is more charitable than the other thought I had, which is that he may be seeking out justification for prejudiced beliefs he holds) than with any fundamental validity to the various racist data he was opting to absorb. He also said he wasn't finding "sufficiently convincing evidence to the contrary," which of course begs the question: What would constitute sufficiency? (Which is incidentally why I think the best position to take on the "HBD" issue is simply to say, "really, you think so? And what do you think are the practical implications?", and let people, if that's their thing, take off the masks and advocate for outright apartheid or at least more guns or whatever they have in mind.) Qwertycoatl posted:I think there was one where they asked people whether they'd be willing to pay $XX for an item, where XX was the last two digits of their social security number, and that worked as an anchor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Yeah, all teenagers are dumb. Especially the smart ones. DING DING DING got it in one. Jack Gladney posted:This information gives me some optimism about the whole phenomenon. One hopes they will unfuckwit themselves. Cingulate posted:Eliezer actually really likes Kahneman. He doesn't name him a lot, but of the 3 pages of Yud's writing I've seen, 5 mention findings originally by Kahneman. Most of the good stuff on LW is Kahneman. (The rest is "37 Ways Words Can Be Wrong", which suffers from LW neologism.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Using a suitable DEVICE such as a yolk-seperator or the Yolkine Seperatus Technique mentioned in the Avine Reproduction Sequence. That is to say you separate the two parts of the egg, you may argue that the shell is part of the egg, but here we are strictly talking about the EDIBLE parts of the egg. You may ask why we define the egg-shell as inedible, but that is for another sequence. Wham-a-bam the yolks till they appear creamish, at which point apply to the mixture two teacupfuls of extra-fine monosaccharide crystals to create a Vitellian Monosaccharide mixture. Here it may be worthwhile noticing that at this point the whites will be in a separate container and that you are not to mix them and the yolks at this stage! See the Mixture Assumption Error sequence. Wham-a-bam the resulting Vitellian Monosaccharide mixture for five to ten minutes while maintaining steady supervision of the mixture to ensure that you reach optimal results. Then add two tablespoonfuls of milk or water, a measure of salt sufficient for this cake. It is worth noticing that despite this being a sweet sponge cake the salt is necessary as a flavour enhancer, much in the same way as MSG may be added to say Chinese take-out foods. The salt is not meant to provide flavour in itself, but, as I said, to enhance the flavour of other ingredients. This is a well known technique, but given how counter-intuitive it is it is a technique that is often either ignored by inexperienced Pastry Creationists or else done entirely by rote without fully understanding the underlying principles. This is why you will also add some flavouring at this stage. Now add a fraction of the albumen, which you should have wham-a-bammed as well. Then add two cups of flour into which you have sifted two teaspoonfuls of baking powder; It is important to understand that the gas-development of the baking-powder is what helps turn this cake into a sponge. As the baking-powder is heated it releases vapours which creates many hollows in the body of the cake. Take the resulting mixture and slowly mix it into the Enhanced Vitellian Monosaccharide mixture, ensure that the mixture speed is the minimum necessary to combine the two ingredients. To conclude mix in the remainder of the albumen. Line the baking containers with buttered paper. That is to say paper onto which butter has been applied to ensure that it will come loose easily when the baking process if over. Then fill the containers two-thirds full.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Scott is totally not a neoreactionary and SSC is totally not a neoreactionary blog! He just casually uses Moldbug as a go-to passing reference when discussing couples counselling for gay men, confident this is just the thing for his readers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
 divabot posted:Scott is totally not a neoreactionary and SSC is totally not a neoreactionary blog! He just casually uses Moldbug as a go-to passing reference when discussing couples counselling for gay men, confident this is just the thing for his readers. Honestly that suggest less that he's a neoreactionary and more that he has no idea where he is, or what's normal anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Holocaust denial is the same as not believing in scientific racism and hereditist ideology. No wonder rationalists and right-wing ideologues love Haidt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Merdifex posted:Holocaust denial is the same as not believing in scientific racism and hereditist ideology. No wonder rationalists and right-wing ideologues love Haidt. I feel like his use of the term "War-crime" instead of "Holocaust" is some kind of dogwhistle but I can't put my finger on it
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:I feel like his use of the term "War-crime" instead of "Holocaust" is some kind of dogwhistle but I can't put my finger on it
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
divabot posted:LessWrong realises it's probably useless now, discusses plans to deal with this. On that page there was this sentence: quote:Instead of writing material to build support and get more funding, Eliezer (and a research team!) can do actual work. Somehow, I highly doubt this. After all, he has to save his biggest skill—rewiring his brain—for when humanity most needs it, since it's a one-shot deal. He wouldn't waste it on something so mundane as getting over his crippling inability to actually do work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
I think it's pretty rare to put that much thought into the wording of a PowerPoint slide. But this sort of weird equivocation is very common, though, obviously, even though it doesn't make very much sense: inasmuch as HNU/GSSM/whatever is mainstream among the vile social-scientific Cathedral, it is the or a "objectively" scientific opinion. You can argue, of course, that it's unjustified on the merits of the particulars, but then that's precisely the claim of the heterodoxy in all cases. And I'm sure that Haidt (and the general culture that produces these kinds of equivocations) sees themselves as making these judgments on the basis of credibility heuristics, not on the basis of their individual investigations, which no one can do to much benefit on more than a few.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
eschaton posted:Somehow, I highly doubt this. After all, he has to save his biggest skill—rewiring his brain—for when humanity most needs it, since it's a one-shot deal. He wouldn't waste it on something so mundane as getting over his crippling inability to actually do work. Somfin has a new favorite as of 06:01 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Phil Sandifer reviews Ex-Machina and takes the opportunity to get stuck into Yudkowsky and the AI-box experiment in passing: Women in AI Boxes: Ex Machina and the Other Turing Test.quote:Ex Machina, the best horror story about Eliezer Yudkowsky since Nick Land’s Phyl-Undhu, is based around a sly joke about the Turing Test, namely that it secretly understands what it actually is ...
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
divabot posted:Phil Sandifer reviews Ex-Machina and takes the opportunity to get stuck into Yudkowsky and the AI-box experiment in passing: Women in AI Boxes: Ex Machina and the Other Turing Test. Haha this is great quote:It is at this point that we must turn to Yudkowsky, which is, and I am speaking from 18,000 words and counting of experience here (you’ll see them someday), something of a rabbit hole. Put very simply, Elizier Yudkowsky is one of those people who worries a whole lot about the Singularity. There are admittedly loads of people this is true of, but Yudkowsky has proven to be a particularly important thinker in this regard, not so much because the thought he produces is very good (it’s in fact very bad), but because he proved idiosyncratically effective at getting people to donate to his well-intentioned sham charity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
I don't have the time to read the last handful of pages but was there any freakout in NRx-ville about Disney banning Slave Girl Leia toys?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:I don't have the time to read the last handful of pages but was there any freakout in NRx-ville about Disney banning Slave Girl Leia toys?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
I checked Jim's blog for some suitably disgusting opinions. Nothing about James Deen, but there's a recent post called "How to genocide inferior kinds in a properly Christian manner."
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I checked Jim's blog for some suitably disgusting opinions. Nothing about James Deen, but there's a recent post called "How to genocide inferior kinds in a properly Christian manner." Our esteemed colleague su3su2u1 responds appropriately to another Jim missive. (More, comprehensively demolishing Jim and Moldbug's software engineer delusions on how science works.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:The worst part is that Sinesalvetorum is the girlfriend of a very nice person I'm mutuals with. They're leftist-leaning while Sinesalvetorum is a libertarian "human biodiversity" proponent. (A rare nonwhite and pro-immigration one, too. She's a native Filipina who got an international scholarship to a Canadian college at, like, 17. She's also bitterly anti-imperialist due to America loving her country over. It's bizarre.) Racist as hell but generally reasonable and pragmatic on immigration and foreign policy sounds like the norm for gifted university students from Asia studying in the West to me. Nothing bizarre about that at all if you strip away the internetty labels and just consider the clusters of opinions they represent, really.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Somfin posted:his dad won't roll his eyes when he talks about his stories ever again I'm pretty sure his dad would roll his eyes way more about the rest of the things than the fanfic. (His dad is a friend of friends, I've hung out with him at cons and stuff.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:04 |
|
|
Moderately annoyed that he chose to represent the couple as gay because he wasn't certain his readers would be able to overcome their own biases with regards to who was in the wrong (which you'd think would tell him something).
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 23:45
|
|