This thread is for the discussion of Less Wrong topics that have not appeared in recent posts. If a discussion gets unwieldy, celebrate by turning it into a top-level post.

Open Thread, August 2010-- part 2
New Comment
373 comments, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:
Some comments are truncated due to high volume. (⌘F to expand all)Change truncation settings

My experiments with nootropics continue. A few days ago, I started taking sulbutiamine (350mg/day), a synthetic analog of thiamine which differs in that it crosses the blood-brain barrier more readily. The effects were immediate, positive, and extremely dramatic - on an entirely different order of magnitude than I expected, and probably the largest single improvement to my subjective well being I have ever experienced. A feeling of mental fatigue and not wanting to do stuff - a feeling that leads to spending lots of time on blogs, playing video games and otherwise killing time suboptimally (though not necessarily the only such feeling) - just up and vanished overnight. This was something that I had identified as a major problem, and believed to be purely psychological in nature, but was, in fact, entirely biochemical. On the first day I took sulbutiamine, I felt significantly better, worked three hours longer than normal, and went to the gym (which would previously have been entirely out of character for me).

That said, I do have a concrete reason to believe that this effect is atypical. Specifically, I believe I was deficient in thiamine; I believe this because I'm a type 1 diabeti... (read more)

[-]gwern140

Oh, in other news, the FDA is apparently going after piracetam; smartpowders.com reports that it's been ordered to cease selling piracetam and is frantically trying to get rid of its stock. See

5wedrifid
That is infuriating! The fools!
4[anonymous]
This puts Robin Hanson's criticism of the FDA in a new perspective for me.
4gwern
They blew it up! They blew it all up! Goddamn them to hell! (Wrong allusion?)
2SilasBarta
Yikes! Hits close to home for me! I had actually ordered bulk piracetam about a week ago, in an order with two other supplements. When the shipment arrived, the piracetam wasn't in it, and it had a note saying it was out of stock and I wouldn't be charged for it, but I'd be informed when it was available again. I thought it was strange at first, since they wouldn't have taken the order if they weren't able to reserve a unit for my order. (This isn't fractional reserve banking, folks!) But that explanation makes a lot more sense. If only I had placed the order a few days earlier...
3gwern
Just-in-time techniques always struck me as being very close to fractional reserve banking, actually... Anyway, elsewhere in that Reddit page, users mention that other nootropics seem to be getting harder to find lately like choline and huperzine-a. (I tried huperzine-a and wasn't impressed, but I kind of need the choline to go with any piracetam.)
0SilasBarta
Strange. My local grocery store with a health food/supplement aisle just started stocking a choline/inositol blend (saw it for the first time two days ago). I previously got the choline in a different supplement section, from a product called LipoTrim.
6pjeby
I noticed that a lot of the reviews were complaining about the taste - were you using it in its raw form, or putting it into capsules?
7jimrandomh
I put it in capsules. Besides getting around the taste, it's also much more convenient that way; rather than having to measure and prepare some every day, I can sit down and prepare a month's worth of capsules in 30 minutes. The more different supplements you take, the more important it is to do it this way.
4Douglas_Knight
Have you considered buying or selling capsules? It seems unlikely that this is something you should do yourself, but only for yourself. Also, before you said that you filled 10 capsules per minute. Do you take 10 capsules per day? Do you mix piracetam and choline in a single capsule?
3jimrandomh
I've considered buying capsules, but decided to get powder instead because it's cheaper and allows more flexibility if I change dosage or decide to pre-mix stuff. I couldn't sell the capsules I make because I don't measure them precisely enough (they vary by +/-10% or so). I currently take 5 capsules day - two of piracetam, two of choline citrate, and one of sulbutiamine. Putting together capsules sounds hard, but it's actually quite easy. You get empty gel caps, which come as two unequally sized pieces that fit together tightly enough to stay in place but loosely enough to pull apart. Take the pieces of the capsule apart, pack some powder into the larger piece, put them together, and drop it on a scale. If it's within acceptable range, drop it in the 'done' container, otherwise open it back up and add some or remove some. After a dozen or so, you get the hang of it and can hit a 10% tolerance pretty consistently on the first time. Wear latex gloves so the gel caps won't stick to your fingers and you don't get hair and sweat in the powder tub. (Edit: the discrepancy between my saying a month's worth of capsules in 30 minutes, and a rate of 10/minute, is due to setup and cleanup time; and neither of these numbers was precise to more than a factor of 2.)
6Douglas_Knight
If it's good enough for you, it may be good enough for customers; it's just a different niche. It may also be an illegal niche. ETA: flexibility is a good reason.
2wedrifid
I'm not speaking for Jim but I note that I find mixing the racetams with the choline source convenient. It allows for simply adjusting the dose while keeping the same ratio.
5gwern
With nootropics, everything tastes bad. I dissolve my stuff in hot water when I make tea, and wash it down with the latter. It didn't taste worse than just piracetam+choline, FWIW - that's foul enough to mask pretty much any taste.
1otto renger
homemade capsules is a good idea,I used to buy some capsules and filler machines from a Chinese supplier.
5ata
Very interesting — thanks for the information. I'm trying piracetam right now, but this also sounds like something I'd like to try. I have similar problems with mental fatigue and low motivation... unfortunately, I don't yet have even a vague sense of the biochemical basis for my issues (my symptoms match chronic fatigue, but it seems like its causal structure is not well-understood anyway). But it's worth a try, I suppose. Are you taking this and the piracetam at the same time, or did you stop the piracetam to try this?
4jimrandomh
Both at the same time. (I have no particular reason to think they interact, I'm just following the strategy of changing only one thing at a time.) I hope sulbutiamine works for you; but if it doesn't, don't give up, it just means the biochemical issue is somewhere else, and there are many more safe things to try.
4gwern
I tried both ways. They didn't seem to interfere or interact.
3gwern
While re-reading the reports here for summary in my personal drugs file, it suddenly occurred to me that your experience with sulbutiamine might be on the level of pica & iron deficiency, and so worth mentioning or linking as a comment in http://lesswrong.com/lw/15w/experiential_pica/ .
3gwern
That's quite interesting. I recently finished up my own 30g supply of sulbutiamine, and while I thought that it does work roughly on the level of piracetam without choline supplementation, I wasn't hugely impressed. But I am not diabetic nor do I match any of the descriptions of beriberi in Wikipedia. (Didn't last me 85 days, however. 200mg strikes me as a pretty small dose.)
1Johannes C. Mayer
It seems that Benfotiamine (none of the other tiamines are over the counter in Germany) had a similar effect on me. I feel a lot better now, whereas before I would feel constantly tired. Before I felt like I could not do anything most of the time without taking stimulants. Now my default is probably more than 50% towards what I felt like on a medium stimulant dose. I did try a lot of interventions in the same time period, so I am not sure how much Benfotiamin contributed on its own, but I expect it to contribute between 25-65% of the positive effects. I also figured out that I am borderline diabetic, which is evidence in favor of Benfotiamine being very significant.
0wedrifid
Thanks for the reminder regarding sulbutiamine. That stuff is fantastic! I'll add that sulbutiamine is one of the nootropics that is absolutely foul tasting!

Bridging the Chasm between Two Cultures: A former New Age author writes about slowly coming to realize New Age is mostly bunk and that the skeptic community actually might have a good idea about keeping people from messing themselves up. Also about how hard it is to open a genuine dialogue with the New Age culture, which has set up pretty formidable defenses to perpetuate itself.

Hah, was just coming here to post this. This article sort of meanders, but it's definitely worth skimming at least for the following two paragraphs:

One of the biggest falsehoods I've encountered is that skeptics can't tolerate mystery, while New Age people can. This is completely wrong, because it is actually the people in my culture who can't handle mystery—not even a tiny bit of it. Everything in my New Age culture comes complete with an answer, a reason, and a source. Every action, emotion, health symptom, dream, accident, birth, death, or idea here has a direct link to the influence of the stars, chi, past lives, ancestors, energy fields, interdimensional beings, enneagrams, devas, fairies, spirit guides, angels, aliens, karma, God, or the Goddess.

We love to say that we embrace mystery in the New Age culture, but that’s a cultural conceit and it’s utterly wrong. In actual fact, we have no tolerance whatsoever for mystery. Everything from the smallest individual action to the largest movements in the evolution of the planet has a specific metaphysical or mystical cause. In my opinion, this incapacity to tolerate mystery is a direct result of my culture’s disavowal of the intellect. One of the most frightening things about attaining the capacity to think skeptically and critically is that so many things don't have clear answers. Critical thinkers and skeptics don't create answers just to manage their anxiety.

3rwallace
Excellent article, thanks for the link! Let's keep in mind that she also wrote about how inflammatory and combative language is counterproductive, and the need to communicate with people in ways they have some chance of understanding.
3NancyLebovitz
What she said wasn't that simple-- she also talks about trying to get her ideas across while being completely inoffensive, and having them not noticed at all. When we're talking about a call to change deeply held premises, getting some chance of being understood is quite a hard problem.

Can't decide? With the Universe Splitter iPhone app, you can do both! The app queries a random number generator in Switzerland which releases a single photon into a half-silvered mirror, meaning that according to MWI each outcome is seen in one branch of the forking Universe. I particularly love the chart of your forking decisions so far.

3cousin_it
With an endorsement from E8 surfer dude!
0andreas
If all you want is single bits from a quantum random number generator, you can use this script.
[-][anonymous]150

I'm looking for something that I hope exists:

Some kind of internet forum that caters to the same crowd as LW (scientifically literate, interested in technology, roughly atheist or rationalist) but is just a place to chat about a variety of topics. I like the crowd here but sometimes it would be nice to talk more casually about stuff other than the stated purpose of this blog.

Any options?

8Document
Stardestroyer.net fits that description somewhat, for values of "casually" that allow for copious swearing punctuating most disagreements. I haven't posted there, but Kaj Sotala posts as Xuenay (apologies no apologies for stalking). Examples of threads on LW-related topics: * Logic Fallacy reference thread Mk. 2 * The Singularity in Sci-Fi (haven't read) * Robots Learn How to Lie * Mini-FAQ on Artificial Intelligence (the thread that properly introduced me to SIAI) * This derailment about Three Worlds Collide * Rationality (short) * And the Winner for Most Probable God is... Azathoth? * Transhumanism: is it viable? (Edited after first upvote; later edited again to add a link.)
6simplicio
This is something I'd very much like as well. If you find anything, let me know. xkcd forums can be pretty good, though I haven't been on there in a while.
6katydee
If all else fails, we can make one of our own.
2simplicio
I was thinking the same thing.
4nhamann
I honestly keep hoping that subreddits will be implemented here sometime soon. Yes, "off-topic" discussion technically doesn't fit the stated purpose of the site, but the alternative of having LWers interested in having off-topic discussion having to migrate off-site to some other discussion forum seems ridiculous to me.
0Perplexed
Pharyngula. More atheist than rational, and more biology than technology, but it is definitely a community. It is a blog, but has an interesting feature called the endless thread which is kind of "collective stream of consciousness". Check it out. And also look at other offerings in the science blogosphere. [Edit:supplied link.]
8JoshuaZ
I would not suggest Pharyngula for this purpose. The endless thread is fun but the rationality level there is not very high. It is higher than that of a random internet forum but I suspect that many LWians would become quickly annoyed at the level at which arguments are treated as soldiers.
7simplicio
Agreed. Myers himself is way too political, and basically not nice. If anybody ever calls him on that, they get an insane level of vitriol and accusations stopping just short of being in league with the Vatican.
3Perplexed
Truth, bro. It is pretty rowdy.

What fosters a sense of camaraderie or hatred for a machine? Or: How users learned to stop worrying and love Clippy

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703959704575453411132636080.html

4NancyLebovitz
I recommend reading the article-- I didn't realize people could be recruited that easily.

I’m not sure whether the satanic ritual abuse and similar prosecutions of the 80s/90s have ever been discussed on LW in any detail (I couldn’t find anything with a few google searches), but some of the failures of rationality in those cases seem to fit into the subject matter here.

For those unfamiliar with these cases, a sort of panic swept through many parts of the United States (and later other countries) resulting in a number of prosecutions of alleged satanic ritual abuse or other extensive conspiracies involving sexual abuse, despite, in almost all cases, virtually no physical evidence that such abuse occurred. Lack of physical evidence, of course, does not always mean that a crime has not occurred, but given the particular types of allegations made, it was not credible in most cases that no physical evidence would exist. It is hard to choose the most outrageous example, but this one is pretty remarkable:

Gerald [Amirault], it was alleged, had plunged a wide-blade butcher knife into the rectum of a 4-year-old boy, which he then had trouble removing. When a teacher in the school saw him in action with the knife, she asked him what he was doing, and then told him not to do it

... (read more)
3jacob_cannell
My father was a forensic psychiatrist heavily involved in some of these cases, testifying for the defense of the accused. The moral panic phenomenon is real and complex, but there's a more basic failure of rationality underlying the whole movement which was the false belief in the inherent veracity of children. Apparently juries (and judges alike) took the testimony of children at face value. The problem was that investigative techniques of the social workers invariably elicited the desired reactions in the children. In law you have the concept of leading the witness, but that doesn't apply for investigations of child abuse. The children are taken away from their parents and basically locked up with the investigators until they tell them what they want to hear. It wasn't even necessarily deliberate - from what I understand in many cases the social workers just had a complete lack of understanding of how they were conditioning the children to fabricate complex and in many cases outright ridiculous stories. Its amazing how similar the whole scare was to historical accounts of the witch trials. Although as far as I know, in the recent scare nobody was put to death (but I could even be wrong about that, and certainly incalculable damage was done nonetheless).

Having a dog in the room made subjects 30% less likely to defect in Prisoner's Dilemma (article; sample size 52 people in groups of 4).

This changes my views on pet ownership completely.

Excellent link. A particularly noteworthy excerpt:

[Q:] I assume that most people in these jobs aren't actually trying to convict innocent people. So how does such misconduct come about?

[A:] I think what happens is that prosecutors and police think they've got the right guy, and consequently they think it's OK to cut corners or control the game a little bit to make sure he's convicted.

This is the same phenomenon that is responsible for most scientific scandals: people cheat when they think they have the right answer.

It illustrates why proper methods really ought to be sacrosanct even when you're sure.

The welcome thread is about to hit 500 comments, which means that the newer comments might start being hidden for new users. Would it be a good thing if I started a new welcome thread?

While I'm at it, I'd like to add some links to posts I think are especially good and interesting for new readers.

4orthonormal
OK, I'm seeing some quick approval. I've been looking back through LW for posts and wiki articles that would be interesting/provocative for new readers, and don't require the entirety of the sequences. Here's my list right now: * Newcomb's Problem and Regret of Rationality * The True Prisoner's Dilemma * How to Convince Me that 2 + 2 = 3 * The Least Convenient Possible World * The Apologist and the Revolutionary * Your Intuitions are Not Magic * The Third Alternative * Lawful Uncertainty * The Domain of Your Utility Function * The Allais Paradox (with two followups) * We Change Our Minds Less Often Than We Think * The Tragedy of Group Selectionism And from the wiki: * Near/Far thinking * Shut Up and Multiply * Evolutionary Psychology * Cryonics * Religion What should I add? What, if anything, should I subtract?
2MartinB
Due to heavy personal history bias: That Alien Message. I would take out anything that involves weird stuff regarding dead people, but that might be better A/B tested or surveyed. My own expectation is that hitting readers with the crazy topics right away is bad and a turn-off while it is better to give out useful and interesting things in the beginning that are relatable right away. [Edit: important missing word added]
0orthonormal
Huh?
0MartinB
Corrected. I meant cryonics, and some of the applications of 'shut up and multiply'.
0orthonormal
Ah. As you can see on the page itself, I decided to leave out the wiki links (for basically the same reasons you mentioned.) I'll add That Alien Message.

A couple of viewquakes at my end.

I was really pleased when the Soviet Union went down-- I thought people there would self-organize and things would get a lot better.

This didn't happen.

I'm still more libertarian than anything else, but I've come to believe that libertarianism doesn't include a sense of process. It's a theory of static conditions, and doesn't have enough about how people actually get to doing things.

The economic crisis of 2007 was another viewquake for me. I literally went around for a couple of months muttering about how I had no idea it (the economy) was so fragile. A real estate bust was predictable, but I had no idea a real estate bust could take so much with it. Of course, neither did a bunch of other people who were much better paid and educated to understand such things, but I don't find that entirely consoling.

This gets back to libertarianism and process, I think. Protections against fraud don't just happen. They need to be maintained, whether by government or otherwise.

NancyLebovitz:

The economic crisis of 2007 was another viewquake for me. I literally went around for a couple of months muttering about how I had no idea it (the economy) was so fragile. A real estate bust was predictable, but I had no idea a real estate bust could take so much with it.

That depends on what exactly you mean by "the economy" being fragile. Most of it is actually extremely resilient to all sorts of disasters and destructive policies; if it weren't so, the modern civilization would have collapsed long ago. However, one critically unstable part is the present financial system, which is indeed an awful house of cards inherently prone to catastrophic collapses. Shocks such as the bursting of the housing bubble get their destructive potential exactly because their effect is amplified by the inherent instabilities of the financial system.

Moldbug's article "Maturity Transformation Considered Harmful" is probably the best explanation of the root causes of this problem that I've seen.

8[anonymous]
Sometimes I think the only kind of libertarianism that makes sense is what I'd call "tragic libertarianism." There is no magic market fairy. Awful things are going to happen to people. Poverty, crime, illness, and war. The libertarian part is that our ability to alleviate suffering through the government is limited. The tragic part is that this is not good news.
4NancyLebovitz
There's another tragic bit-- some of what government does makes things worse. There's no magic government fairy that guarantees good (or even non-horrible) results just because a government is doing something.
1[anonymous]
Yes, exactly.

I'm considering starting a Math QA Thread at the toplevel, due to recent discussions about the lack of widespread math understanding on LW. What do you say?

3XiXiDu
Here is all the math you need to know to understand most of LW (correct me if I'm wrong): * The Khan Academy (For the basics.) * A Guide to Bayes’ Theorem – A few links (Just this might do too.) I'm working through all of it right now. Not very far yet though. You might want to add computer science and basic programming knowledge too.
5cousin_it
Some people, including me, can get away with knowing much less and just figuring stuff out as we go along. I'm not sure if anyone can learn this ability, but for me personally it wasn't inborn and I know exactly how I acquired it. Working through one math topic properly at school over a couple years taught me all the skills needed to fill any gaps I encountered afterwards. University was a breeze after that. The method of study was this: we built one topic (real analysis) up from the ground floor (axiomatization of the reals), receiving only the axioms and proving all theorems by working through carefully constructed problem sets. An adult could probably condense this process into several months. It doesn't sound like much fun - it's extremely grueling intellectual work of the sort most people never even attempt - but when you're done, you'll never be afraid of math again.
4XiXiDu
I had to figure out ALL myself, without the help of anyone in meatspace. I'm lacking any formal education that be worth mentioning. The very language I'm writing in right now is almost completely self-taught. It took me half a decade to get here, irrespective of my problems. That is, most of the time I haven't been learning anything but merely pondering what is the right thing to do in the first place. Only now I've gathered enough material, intention and the basic tools to tackle my lack of formal education.
1XiXiDu
Ok, you might add some logic and set theory as well if you want to grasp the comments. Although some comment threads go much further than that.
3NancyLebovitz
I'm not sure that people necessarily know what questions they need to ask, or even that they need to ask. A math Q&A seems like a good idea, but it would be a better idea if there were some "the math you need for LW" posts first. There was a very nice piece here (possibly a quote) on how to think about math problems-- no more that a few paragraphs long. It was about how to break things down and the sorts of persistence needed. Anyone remember it?
0nhamann
I have been wanting something like this on LW for quite awhile, but wasn't sure it was on topic. With your linked post in mind, however, I think this is a good idea, and I, for one, would be an active participant.
[-]ata80

[Originally posted this in the first August 2010 Open Thread instead of this Part 2; oops]

I've been wanting to change my username for a while, and have heard from a few other people who do too, but I can see how this could be a bit confusing if someone with a well-established identity changes their username. (Furthermore, at LW meetups, when I've told people my username, a couple of people have said that they didn't remember specific things I've posted here, but had some generally positive affect associated with the name "ata". I would not want t... (read more)

0arundelo
Your username reminds me of a scene from one of my favorite South Park episodes (slightly NSFW).

I've been thinking more and more about web startups recently (I'm nearing the end of grad school and am contemplating whether a life in academia is for me). I'm no stranger to absurd 100 hour weeks, love technology, and most of all love solving problems, especially if it involves making a new tool. Academia and startups are both pretty good matches for those specs.

Searching the great wisdom of the web suggests that a good startup should be two people, and that the best candidate for a cofounder is someone you've known for a while. From my own perspective, ... (read more)

4curiousepic
If you weren't already aware, Hacker News http://news.ycombinator.com/ has a lot of discussion about startups.
2Jordan
Great community. I like the discussion there in general. Most of the people have a great innate rationality, even when it isn't as dissected and methodical as it is here.
1xamdam
Funny, the NYC Meetup (today) is going to touch on this topic ('cause I've been thinking about it). It's one of the "ways rationalists can make money", IMO.
1Jordan
I agree, it does seem like a great untapped potential for a rationalist community. The obvious question is, does being a rationalist make you a better founder of a startup? Or, more relevant here, does being a rationalist of LessWrong stripes make you a better founder? When it comes to programming prowess, I doubt rationality confers much benefit. But when it comes to the psychological steel needed to forge a startup: dealing with uncertainty, sunk costs, investors, founder feuds, etc... I think a black belt in rationality could be a hell of a weapon!
0xamdam
BTW, we having this discussion here: http://groups.google.com/group/overcomingbiasnyc/browse_thread/thread/3b91c0f4460dca63?hl=en
0xamdam
I think dealing with uncertainty is key. I think Frank Knight formulated the idea that this is where the greatest returns are; I feel that this is something rationalists should be better than average at. I also think this should give advantage to rationalists in areas other than startups, though startups definitely come to mind.

Quick question about time: Is a time difference the same thing as the minimal energy-weighted configuration-space distance?

3wedrifid
That is among the most difficult 'quick questions' I have ever seen.
9Clippy
I meant 'quick' in the sense of 'relating to the nature of quickness'.
0Kazuo_Thow
Will a correct answer to this question give you significant help toward maximizing the number of paperclips in the universe?
2Clippy
Yes.
0[anonymous]
I have no idea.
[-]knb60

IMO, the quality of comments on Overcoming Bias has diminished significantly since Less Wrong started up. This was true almost from the beginning, but the situation has really spiraled out of control more recently.

I gave up reading the comments regularly last year, but once a week or so, I peek at the comments and they are atrociously bad (and almost uniformly negative). The great majority seem unwilling to even engage with Robin Hanson's arguments and instead rely on shaming techniques.

So what gives? Why is the comment quality so much higher on LW than on... (read more)

9cata
I wasn't reading OB before LW existed, but if you look there now, it's immediately apparent that the topics represented on the front page are much, much, much more interesting to the average casual reader than the ones on LW's front page. I wouldn't be surprised if the commenters tended to be less invested and less focused as a result. (EDIT: I shouldn't say the "average casual reader," since that must mean something different to everyone. I clarified what I meant below in response to katydee; I think OB appeals to a large audience of interested laymen who like accessible, smart writing on a variety of topics, but who aren't very interested in a lot of LW's denser and more academic discussion.)
3katydee
I suppose I'm not the average casual reader, but here's my comparison-- Less Wrong front page: -Occam efficiency/rationality games-- low interest -Strategies for confronting existential risk-- high interest -Potential biases in evolutionary psychology-- mid-level interest -Taking ideas seriously-- extremely high interest -Various community threads-- low/mid interest -Quick explanations of rationality techniques-- extremely high interest -Conflicts within the mind-- mid/high interest Overcoming Bias front page: -Personality trait effects on romantic relationships-- minimal interest -Status and reproduction-- minimal interest -Flaws with medicine- mid-level interest -False virginity-- no interest beyond "it exists" -(In)efficiency of free parking-- minimal interest -Strategies for influencing the future-- high interest -Reproductive ethics-- minimal interest -Economic debate-- minimal interest Only two of the Overcoming Bias articles were interesting to me at all; only one was strongly interesting, and it was also short. Less Wrong seemed, at least to me, to have better/more interesting topics than Overcoming Bias, which might be why it has better/more interesting discussions.
4cata
I totally agree with you; that's why I'm here! But personally, I know a lot of fairly smart, moderately well-educated people who just aren't very interested in a life of the mind. They don't get a lot out of studying philosophy and math, they read a little but not a lot, they don't seek intellectual self-improvement, and they aren't terribly introspective. However, they all have a passing interest in current events, technology, economics, and social issues; the stuff you'd find in the New Yorker or Harper's, or on news aggregators. Hanson's writing on these topics is exactly the sort of thing that appeals to that demographic, whereas Less Wrong is just not.
6wedrifid
I certainly find Hanson's anecdotes far more useful when socialising with people that have interested in hearing surprising stories about human behaviour (ie. most of the people I bother socialising with). The ability to drop sound bites is, after all, the primary purpose of keeping 'informed' in general.
0katydee
It seems unusual that people would have a passing interest in technical issues in economics but not psychology.
0ShardPhoenix
Hmm, you seem to be seeing a totally different OB "front page" to me. Where are you seeing those articles? edit: nevermind, I thought this was the current open thread. I didn't see that it was from 2010.
7Eliezer Yudkowsky
I remember there being lots of bad comments on the old OB, and I think that putting a karma system in place, and requiring registration, helped an awful lot.
3wedrifid
I expect that was the biggest reason. When I started following OB it basically was Eliezer's blog. Sure, occasionally Robin would post a quote and an interpretation but that was really just 'intermission break' entertainment. I do note that comments here have been said to have reduced in quality. That is probably true and is somewhat related to lacking a stream of EY posts and also because there aren't many other prominent posters (like Yvain, Roko, Wei, etc.) posting on the more fascinating topics. (At least, fascinating to me.)
4SilasBarta
lol, yeah, that's the impression I got in the OB days. When there was discussion about renaming the site, I half-seriously thought it should be called "Eliezer Yudkowsky and the backup squad" :-P Oh man, just you wait! I'm almost done with one. Here's the title and summary: Title: Morality as Parfitian-filtered Decision Theory? (Alternate title: Morality as Anthropic Acausal Optimization?) Summary: Situations like the Parfit's Hitchhiker problem select for a certain kind of mind: specifically, one that recognizes that an action can be optimal, in a self-interested sense, even if it can no longer cause any future benefit. A mind that can identify such actions might place them in a different category which enables it to perform them, in defiance of the (futureward) consequentialist concerns that normally need to motivate it. Our evolutionary history has put us through such "Parfitian filters", and the corresponding actions, viewed from the inside, feel like "the right thing to do"; we are unconvinced by arguments that point out the lack of a future benefit -- or our estimates of the magnitude of what future benefits do exist is skewed upward. Therein lies the origin of our moral intuitions, as well as the basis for creating the category "morality" in the first place.
2orthonormal
I know I've been mentioning Good and Real constantly since I read it, but this sounds a bit like the account of human decision theory (morality) in G&R...
3SilasBarta
I've made about six different 3-paragraph posts about G&R in the past three weeks, so I think you're safe ;-) And yes, it does draw heavily on Drescher's account of the overlap between "morality" and "acting as if recognizing subjunctive acausal means-end links" (which I hope to abbreviate to SAMEL without provoking a riot).
1SilasBarta
Anyone know how to do linked footnotes? Where you have a link that jumps to the bottom and one at the bottom that jumps back to the point in the text? I suppose I could just do [1], [2], etc., but I figure that would annoy people.
2wedrifid
I'm looking forward to that one! I can't guarantee that I'll agree with all of it (it will depend on how strong you make some of the claims in the middle) but I can tell I'll be engaged either way. My first impression from the titles was that the 'Alternative' one was far better. But on reflection it sounds like the first title would be more accurate.
0Cyan
That sounds like a follow-up or generalization of your blog post on Parfit's Hitchhiker and intellectual property. I look forward to it!
0katydee
Who, in particular, said the comments have reduced in quality? Your post seems weasel-wordy to me as it currently stands.
2wedrifid
rhollerith_dot_com is one. I don't think I am being excessively controversial here. Ebbs and flows of post content are inevitable and even just looking at the voting trends in the post list. There is little shame in such a variation... it is a good sign that people are busy doing real work! Perhaps, but it was also polite. I did not (and still am not) providing the explicit link because I don't see it necessary to direct people to the surrounding context. The context represents a situation that was later shown to be a success story in personal development but at that time reflected negatively.
3SilasBarta
In the OB days, I mainly read it because of EY. Maybe others did too. I'm surprised that OB still wins in the usage stats.
2Perplexed
I don't follow OB, but your comment sent me over there to look around. What I saw was a lot of criticism from feminists regarding posts by Robin that had a strong anti-feminist odor to them. I also saw some posts on less controversial subjects that drew almost no comments at all. So the natural presumption is that those feminist commentors are not regulars, but rather were attracted to OB when a post relevant to their core interests got syndicated somewhere. If that is what you are talking about then ... Well, sure, a registration system might have repelled some of the commentors. If Robin really wants to insulate himself from feedback in this way, it might work. But I rather doubt that he is the kind of person to exclaim "OMG, we have wymin commenting here! Who let them in?". I hope his regulars aren't either. Some comments on topics like this are emotive. Admittedly, you can't really engage with them. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't at least read them, count them, and try to learn something from their sheer existence, if not from their logic.
1knb
That isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about a general impression I've gotten over the last year. Robin's recent posts have received an Instalanche, so they're hardly representative.
2wedrifid
Absolutely. OB posts are worth a read occasionally but the comments are not. And here I include even comments (not posts) by Robin himself. The way Robin replies does, I suggest, contribute to who is willing or interested in commenting there. Status interferes rather drastically with the ability of prominent figures to engage usefully in a public forum. By public forum I refer to the generic meaning not electronic adoption. It is often the case that hecklers wishing to shame and express outrage are the only ones who consider it worthwhile to show up. For my part if I was particularly keen on discussing a topic from OB I would consider bringing it up on the open thread on LW.
[-]ata60

Quick question — I know that Eliezer considers all of his pre-2002 writings to be obsolete. GISAI and CFAI were last updated in 2001 but are still available on the SIAI website and are not accompanied by any kind of obsolescence notice (and are referred to by some later publications, if I recall correctly). Are they an exception, or are they considered completely obsolete as well? (And does "obsolete" mean "not even worth reading", or merely "outdated and probably wrong in many instances"?)

Is there a post dealing with the conflict between the common LW belief that there are no moral absolutes, and that it's okay to make current values permanent; and the belief that we have made moral progress by giving up stoning adulterers, slavery, recreational torture, and so on?

1ata
I'm not sure that both of those are common LW beliefs (at least common in the same people at the same time), but I don't see any conflict there. If there are no moral absolutes, then making current values permanent is just as good as letting them evolve as they usually do. Who here advocates making current values permanent?
0PhilGoetz
Replace "making current values permanent" with CEV jargon on extrapolating volition into future minds within a trajectory determined by current human values. (The CEV program still needs to demonstrate that means something different from "making current values permanent". Details depend, among other things, on how or whether you split values up into terminal and instrumental values.)
4timtyler
It certainly explicitly claims not to be doing that - see: "2. Encapsulate moral growth." - http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html

I recently started taking piracetam, a safe and unregulated (in the US) nootropic drug that improves memory. The effect (at a dose of 1.5g/day) was much stronger than I anticipated; I expected the difference to be small enough to leave me wondering whether it was mere placebo effect, but it has actually made a very noticeable difference in the amount of detail that gets committed to my long-term memory.

It is also very cheap, especially if you buy it as a bulk powder. Note that when taking piracetam, you also need to take something with choline in it. I bo... (read more)

3katydee
Two questions: -How much does it cost? -How soon do you start becoming desensitized to it, if at all?
5jimrandomh
I ordered from here at a price of $46 for 500g each of piracetam and choline citrate, plus $10 for gel caps and $20 for a scale (which is independently useful). I could not find any reported instances of desensitization to piracetam, so I don't think it's an issue. I'm trying out nootropics, adding them one at a time. Next on my list to try is sulbutiamine; I've seen claims that it prevents mental fatigue, and it too has basically zero side-effect risks. Also on my list to try are lion's mane, aniracetam, l-tyrosine and fish oil. All of these are unregulated in the US. I also use adrafinil, which greatly improves my focus. However, it's more expensive and it can't be used continuously without extra health risks, so I only use it occasionally rather than as part of my daily regimen. (There's an expensive and prescription-only related drug, modafinil, which can be used continuously.)
2katydee
Sounds good. Be sure to report back once you test out the others-- nootropics are very interesting to me, and I think generally useful to the community as well.
8rabidchicken
First, the results of a wikipedia check: "There is very little data on piracetam's effect on healthy people, with most studies focusing on those with seizures, dementia, concussions, or other neurological problems." which seems to decrease the assurance of safety for everyday use. But otherwise, most of the sources appear to agree with your advertising. I too would like to see memory tests for these drugs, but preferably in a large and random sample of people, with a control group given a placebo, and another control group taking the tests with no aid of any kind. As well as a long term test to check for diminishing effectiveness or side effects. With my memory, I would pay a considerable amount to improve it, but first I want to see a wide scale efficiency test.
7PhilGoetz
Why? Given the low cost and risk of trying it out, the high possible benefits, and the high probability that results will depend on individual genetic or other variations and so will not reach significance in any study, wouldn't the reasonable thing be to try it yourself, even if the wide-scale test had already concluded it had no effect?
-1rabidchicken
Using your logic, I would be forced to try a large proportion of all drugs ever made. My motivation to buy this drug is close to my motivation to buy every other miracle drug out there, I want more third party tests of each one so I can make a more informed decision of where to spend my money, instead of experimenting on hundreds per month. Also, it does not have a DIN number in Canada, so I would need to import it.
6gwern
A large proportion of drugs ever made have been claimed to improve memory and have a long history of null-results for side-effects and positive results for mental improvement? Indeed.
5wedrifid
Working on it. Give me a few years.
2Cyan
Question: did you find that it leads to faster grokking (beyond the effects of improvement of raw recall ability)?
1jimrandomh
I don't know, but I think it's just memory. This is almost impossible to self-test, since there's a wide variance in problem difficulty and no way to estimate difficulty except by speed of grokking itself.

"But it’s better for us not to know the kinds of sacrifices the professional-grade athlete has made to get so very good at one particular thing.
Oh, we’ll invoke lush clichés about the lonely heroism of Olympic athletes, the pain and analgesia of football, the early rising and hours of practice and restricted diets, the preflight celibacy, et cetera. But the actual facts of the sacrifices repel us when we see them: basketball geniuses who cannot read, sprinters who dope themselves, defensive tackles who shoot up with bovine hormones until they collaps

... (read more)

Jaron Laier is at it again: The First Church of Robotics

Besides piling up his usual fuzzy opinions about AI Jaron claims, and I cannot imagine that this was done out of sheer ignorance, that "This helps explain the allure of a place like the Singularity University. The influential Silicon Valley institution preaches a story that goes like this: one day in the not-so-distant future, the Internet will suddenly coalesce into a super-intelligent A.I., infinitely smarter than any of us individually and all of us combined"; I cannot imagine that this ... (read more)

1SilasBarta
Seconded. I think SingU is stupid, but whatever its faults, that isn't one of them, and it would be bad if this image spilled onto SIAI. I'm kind of upset too, because I was just reading Jaron Lanier's recent book, which is the biggest dose of sanity I've seen on issues I care about in a long time.

I bet a good way to improve your rationality is to attempt to learn from the writings of smart, highly articulate people, whom you consider morally evil, and who often use emotional language to mock people like yourself. So, for example, feminists could read Roissy and liberals could read Ann Coulter.

http://roissy.wordpress.com/ http://www.anncoulter.com/

9[anonymous]
I've done exactly this. Read Roissy, read far-right sites (though not Coulter specifically.) Basically sought out the experience of having my feelings hurt, in the interest of curiosity. I learned a few things from the experience. First, they have a few good points (my politics have changed over time). Second, they are not right about everything just because they are mean and nasty and make me feel bad, and in fact sometimes right-wingers and anti-feminists display flaws in reasoning. And, third, I learned how to deal better with emotional antagonism itself: I don't bother seeking out excuses to be offended any more, but I do protect myself by avoiding people who directly insult me.
8grouchymusicologist
You'll have to expand on this before I could agree. My inclination is to think quite the opposite. That is, when I read people who more or less articulately use highly emotion-button-pushing language to mock people like me, it puts my defenses up and makes me try to justify my beliefs, rationality be damned. Was this not pretty much the thrust of Politics is the Mind-Killer? If I were, to adopt a wild hypothetical, a conservative, I would probably say nearly anything to defend myself -- whether publicly or in my own mind -- against the kind of mockery I'd get on a daily basis from Paul Krugman's blog (Krugman chosen as example per mattnewport). Rationality-wise, that is not the position I want to be trying to put myself in. Rather, I want to seek out reasoned, relatively "cool" (as opposed to emotionally "hot") expressions of opposing viewpoints and try to approach them open-mindedly, trying to modify my positions if warranted. I mean, am I missing something?
3James_Miller
"If I were, to adopt a wild hypothetical, a conservative, I would probably say nearly anything to defend myself -- whether publicly or in my own mind -- against the kind of mockery I'd get on a daily basis from Paul Krugman's blog" Yes, most people would do this, so the rationality challenge would be to fight against it. Think of it as special-forces-intensity rationality training.
8orthonormal
Not everything that is difficult is thereby good training. It's easier to withstand getting punched in the gut if you're in good physical shape, but I wouldn't suggest trying to get in shape by having someone punch you repeatedly in the gut. (Indeed, at some point of martial arts training it's useful to learn how to take a punch, but this training has to be done carefully and sparingly. You don't become stronger by rupturing your spleen.)
7orthonormal
I think this norm would do poorly in practice, because people would seek out antagonists they unconsciously knew would be flawed, rather than those who actually scare them. A much better idea, I think, is the following: 1. Find someone who appears intelligent to you but is very ideologically different. 2. Offer to read a book of their choice if they read a book of your choice. 3. Give them a book you think will challenge them. I'd suggest, however, that you not give the other person someone who will constantly mock their position, because usually this will only further polarize them away from you. Exposing oneself to good contrary arguments, not ridicule, is the way for human beings to update.
6Oligopsony
It's probably good to have a mix. I get something distinct from reading people like Roissy or Sailer, whose basic values are totally divorced from my own. I get something else from Eliezer or Will Wilkinson, who derive different policy preferences from values that are similar to mine. There's something liberating about evil analysis, and I think it's that it's audaciousness allows you to put down mental blinders that would be on guard againstmore plausible threats to your ideological integrity. And a nice thing about values changing over time is that the classics are full of this stuff. Reading, say, Schmidt is like reading political philosophy from Mars, and that's something you should experience regularly. Any similar recommendations?
6grouchymusicologist
Upvoted. From my reply you'll see that I agree it's probably good to seek out, as you say, those "whose basic values are totally divorced from [one's'] own." But can you say more about James Miller's original contention that you should specifically be seeking out that which is designed to piss you off? That's where it seems to me that his idea goes just totally wrong. How is this going to do anything except encourage you to retreat into tribalism?
3James_Miller
If you know that doing X will " encourage you to retreat into tribalism" then doing X gives you a great opportunity to fight against your irrational instincts.
2Oligopsony
Well, there is the aesthetic appreciation of polemic for its own sake, but that's not going to make you more rational. I think the most obvious answer, though, is that it can inure you a bit to connotative sneers. Aversion to this kind of insult is likely one of the major things keeping you from absorbing novel information! One way to do this very quickly - you shouldn't, of course, select your politics for such trivial advantages, but if you do, take advantage of it - is to become evil yourself, relative to the majority's values. There are certain groups an attack upon which constitutes an applause line in the mainstream. If you identify as a communist or fascist or Islamist or other Designated Antagonist Group, you can either take the (obviously epistemically disastrous) route of only reading your comrades, or you can keep relying on mainstream institutional sources of information that insult you, and thereby thicken your skin. (Empirical prediction: hard {left|right}ists are more likely to read mainstream {conservatives|liberals} than are mainstream {liberals|conservatives}.) (An alternate strategy this suggests, if your beliefs are, alas, pedestrian, is to "identify" with some completely ridiculous normative outlook, like negative utilitarianism or something. Let everyone's viewpoint offend you until "this viewpoint offends!" no longer functions as a curiosity stopper.)
1grouchymusicologist
Well, I understand your reasoning: you suggest that it's likely (or at least possible) that one's reaction in the face of rhetorically "hot" disagreement will be a built-up tolerance (immunity) for mockery, making one more able to extract substance and ignore affect. My belief is that that particular strength of character (which I admire when I see it, which is rarely) is infrequent relative to, as I keep calling it, a retreat into tribalism in the face of mockery of one's dearly-held beliefs. Hence my feeling that the upper-left quadrant of the graph I describe is not good breeding grounds for rationality. That isn't to suggest that we shouldn't do our best to self-modify such that that would no longer be the case, but it is hard to do and our efforts might be best spent elsewhere. Also worth considering is the hypothesis that the two axes of my graph aren't fully independent, but instead that "hot" expressions are correlated with substantively less rich and worthwhile viewpoints, because the richest and most worthwhile viewpoints wouldn't have much need to rely on affect. If this is true (and I think it is at least somewhat true), it would be another reason for avoiding rhetorically "hot" political viewpoints in general.
1Oligopsony
As my political beliefs have become more evil I've become much better at ignoring insults to my politics. I remain pretty thin-skinned individually, though, so it seems that whatever's moving me in this way is politics-specific. The healthiest reading space is probably all over the axis. Passion is not the opposite of reason, and there are pleasures to take in reading beyond the conveyance of mere information.
4grouchymusicologist
Further to this. Let's plot political discourse along two axes: substantive (x axis: -disagree to +agree) and rhetorical (y axis: -"cool"/reasoned to +"hot"/emotional). Oligopsony states that it is valuable to engage with those on the left-hand side of the graph (people who disagree with you), without any particular sense that special dangers are posed by the upper left-hand quadrant. (Oligopsony says reading so-and-so is "like reading political philosophy from Mars, and that's something you should experience regularly" -- regardless of the particular emotional relationship you are going to have with that Martian political philosophy as a function of the way in which it's presented.) My view (following on, I think, PitM-K -- and in sharp disagreement with James Miller's original post in this thread) is that the upper half of the graph, and particularly the upper left-hand quadrant, is danger territory, because of the likelihood you are going to retreat into tribalism as your views are mocked.
0Multiheaded
I like many aspects of Schmitt and he never produced any shock in me, unlike e.g. many bloggers who can be found 1-2 links away from Moldbug. In fact, many leftists have talked favourably about his reasoning if not his values.
0Vladimir_M
Oligopsony: Please pardon my evident lack of erudition, but which Schmidt do you have in mind?
0Oligopsony
Carl, and upon looking it up it's Schmitt. So the lack of erudition is all mine.
1Vladimir_M
Yes, I've heard of Schmitt. Paul Gottfried, who is one of my favorite contemporary political theorists, wrote a book about him. I plan to read at least some of Schmitt's original work before reading what Gottfried has to say about him, but I haven't gotten to it yet. Do you have any particular recommendations? If you want to read some political philosophy that's really out there by modern standards, try Joseph de Maistre. His staunch Catholicism will probably be off-putting to many people here, but a truly unbiased reader should understand that modern political writers are smuggling just as many unwarranted metaphysical assumptions into their work, except in much more devious ways. Also, although some of his arguments have been objectively falsified in the meantime, others have struck me as spot-on from the modern perspective of Darwinian insight into human nature and the humanity's practical political experiences from the last two centuries. (His brother Xavier is a minor classic of French literature, whom I warmly recommend for some fun reading.)
4wedrifid
I would accept that bet. In my experience exposure to such writings mostly serves to produce contempt. Contempt is one emotion that seems to have a purely deleterious effect on thinking. Anger, fear, sadness, anxiety and depression all provide at least some positive effects on thinking in the right circumstances but contempt... nothing.
2Emile
I've been trying to do roughly that, though focusing more on the "smart and highly articulate" aspect and dropping "emotional mockery". When I read someone taking cheap shots at a position I might hold, I mostly find the writer childish and annoying, I don't see how reading more of that would improve my rationality. It doesn't really hurt my feelings, unlike some commenters here, so I guess different people need to be prodded in different ways. For smart and articulate writers with a rationalist vibe, I would recommend Mencius Moldbug (posts are articulate but unfortunately quite long; advocates monarchy, colonialism and slavery) and Noam Chomsky. Any recommendations of smart, articulate and "extreme" writers whose views are far from those two?
4Richard_Kennaway
I have the same reaction to someone taking cheap shots, period. It doesn't matter whether they're arguing something I agree with, disagree with, or don't care about. It just lowers my opinion of the writer.
3kodos96
Slavery? I'm certainly not defending Moldbug, but if he advocated slavery, I must have missed that post. Do you have a link?
1gwern
See http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=slavery%20site%3Aunqualified-reservations.blogspot.com%2F And there is, of course, http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009_03_01_archive.html which cannot be excerpted and done proper justice.
2kodos96
Hrmmmm... haven't read the second link yet, but that first excerpt is.... well.... yeah. The selling yourself into slavery part is basically unobjectionable (to a libertarian), but selling your children into slavery....... I think Moldbug's positions seem to be derived not so much from reversed stupidity as reversed PC.
3SilasBarta
I'll have to disagree, at least to the extent that this is taken as a positive attribute. I find his posts to be rambling and cutesy, which may correspond to articulate. But most people here have the kind of mind that prefers "get to the point" writing, which he fails at.
3gwern
I think Moldbug is far away from any living thinker you could name. And he'd probably tell you so himself. (FWIW, I think Moldbug is usually wrong, through a combination of confirmation bias and reversed stupidity, although I'm still open on Austrian economics in general.)
4cata
I have a very hard time evaluating Moldbug's claims, due to my lack of background in the relevant history, but holy shit, do I ever enjoy reading his posts. The crowd here may be very interested in watching him debate Robin Hanson about futarchy before an audience at the 2010 Foresight conference. Moldbug seems to be a bit quicker with the pen than in person. Moldbug's initial post that spurred the argument is here; it's very moldbuggy, so the summary, as far as my understanding goes, is like this: Futarchy is exposed to corrupt manipulators, decision markets can't correctly express comparisons between multiple competing policies, many potential participants are incapable of making rational actions on the market, and it's impossible to test whether it's doing a good job. http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/05/futarchy-considered-retarded.html Video of the debate is here: http://vimeo.com/9262193 Moldbug's followup: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2010/01/hanson-moldbug-debate.html Hanson's followup: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/01/my-moldbug-debate.html
0Emile
I enjoy reading his posts too (when I have the time - not much, lately), but I wasn't very impressed by his debate with Robin Hanson - his arguments seemed to be mostly rehashing typical arguments against prediction markets that I'd heard before.
0gwern
I was less than impressed by Hanson's response (in a comment) to http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2010/02/pipe-shorting-and-professor-hansons.html
2kodos96
Yeah, that response didn't have much content, but I think that's pretty understandable considering that by that point in their debate, Moldbug had already revealed himself to be motivated by something other than rational objections to Hanson's ideas, and basically immune to evidence. In their video debate it became very clear that Moldbug's strategy was simply to hold Hanson's ideas to an impossibly high standard of evidence, hold his own ideas to an incredibly low standard of evidence, and then declare victory. So I can understand why Hanson might not have thought it was worth investing a lot more time in responding point by point.
2cousin_it
I'm kinda torn about Moldbug. His political arguments look shaky, but whenever he hits a topic I happen to know really well, he's completely right. (1, 2) Then again, he has credentials in CS but not history/economy/poli-sci, so the halo effect may be unjustified. Many smart people say dumb things when they go outside their field.
2SilasBarta
That just shows he got two easy questions right. When he spells out his general philosophy, which I had criticized before, you see just how anti-rational his epistemology is. You're just seeing a broken clock at noon. By the way, anyone know if "Mencius Moldbug" is his real name? It sounds so fake.
2gwern
He states that it's a pseudonym. (It's actually quite a clever one - unique, and conveys a lot about him.)
2Mitchell_Porter
MM's name combines the pseudonyms he previously used as a commenter in two separate blogging realms (HBD and finance).
2CronoDAS
It's a pseudonym; he's said that himself, but I don't remember where.
-1cousin_it
I am about 80% confident that his real name is [redacted]
5Emile
Publically revealing people trying to stay anonymous (though admittedly in his case, not very hard) is not very nice :P
0gwern
Funny, I like CS too but his writings put me off in part; I particularly disliked his Nock language. It looks like a seriously crappy Lisp to me (and I like Haskell better).
1cousin_it
Agreed, Nock was a neat puzzle, but not much more. I have no idea why he tried to oversell it so.
1Richard_Kennaway
Nock was followed by Urbit, "functional programming from scratch", but that project doesn't seem to have gone anywhere, and it's not clear to me where there would be for it to go. His vision of "Martian code", "tiny and diamond-perfect" is still a castle in the air, the job of putting a foundation under it still undone. A criticism that I think applies to his politics as well. He does a fine destructive critique of the current state of things and how we got here, but is weak on what he would replace it by.
1Emile
Probably, as lon as you restrict yourself to sane, articulate thinkers in the West. There are probably even more outlandish ideas in Japan, India, or the Islamic world. Come to think of it, it would probably be more instructive to read "non-westernized" intellectuals from India, Korean, Japan, China or the Islamic world, talking about the west. I think Moldbug recommended a medieval Japanese writer talking about his experience in America, but I can't find it right now.
1gwern
Yukichi Fukuzawa. Only limited parts of his works are online (eg. in Google Books, very limited previews).
0Daniel_Burfoot
Why do you think MM has a rationalist vibe?. He doesn't talk about probability or heuristics/biases etc.
0simplicio
I would defend an (eviscerated) monarchy such as Canadians like me and other Commonwealthers have as being a social good, insofar as it's a rich & elegant tradition that's not very pernicious. Actual "off with his head" monarchy... nah. And if Prince Charles decides to flap his unelected gums too much when he accedes, you may see me change my tune. But at the moment I'm happy to be a subject of HM Queen Elizabeth.
2NancyLebovitz
Who should conservatives read?
4cata
Glenn Greenwald!
2[anonymous]
Paul Krugman's a good example, because he goes on the offensive, but he's not quite offensive enough. For good, juicy ad hominems, read SLOG (the blog of the Seattle Stranger) or Feministe. How to offend a conservative is an interesting question. I think it should be easy to offend (or upset or disgust) a traditional social conservative, with simple sexual shock value. It's harder for me to think of ways to offend an economic conservative. The closest thing I can think of is stereotyping libertarians as weirdo losers.
0CronoDAS
Advocate Marxism?
0mattnewport
Paul Krugman?
2CronoDAS
My experience is that Paul Krugman is one of those people with whom you disagree at your peril.
-1kodos96
If by "peril" you mean being censored from the comments section of his blog....
2CronoDAS
If you disagreed with him about long-term interest rates on T-bills, and you bet on that belief, you lost a lot of money.
0kodos96
And if you agreed with him about the housing market and bought any real estate a few years back, then you're probably underwater right now.
4CronoDAS
Even if you sold in 2006? I don't know if that link is gated or not.
0kodos96
The fact that he (partially) acknowledged the existence of the problem, once it was well underway, doesn't change the fact that he actively advocated the policies that caused the problem.
0CronoDAS
Should the Federal Reserve have refrained from lowering interest rates in 2001?
1Craig_Heldreth
This is a special case of a well known process in social science circles since at least the 1950's: role playing. It became popular after the work of Fritz Perls (a psychotherapist who started out in drama), who would have the patient do things such as play their mother or father (or tyrannical trauma family character of choice) to try and broaden their understanding of their life story and memory. It can be a very powerful technique. I have been in group psychotherapy sessions where people scream, bawl, and many other visceral responses get displayed. In 1983 Robert Anton Wilson published a book, Prometheus Unbound which was ostensibly a self-help book for making your thinking more rational, specifically for destroying dogmas. This book is little more than one recipe after another for exercises of this type; for example, be a neo-Nazi for a week. The mechanics is to learn by exposing yourself to that great universe of unknown-unknowns. My personal experience is sometimes they can be helpful, but it is really hard to know beforehand if they will be worth the time. I have benefited from some of these things; I have wasted time doing some.
0timtyler
Ann Coulter's blog seems fixed-width and very narrow :-(