LESSWRONG
LW

Politics and Rationality
SteelmanningEpistemologyReversed Stupidity Is Not IntelligenceDistinctionsPrinciplesRationality
Frontpage

191

    Reversed Stupidity Is Not Intelligence

    by Eliezer Yudkowsky
    12th Dec 2007
    4 min read
    121

    191

    SteelmanningEpistemologyReversed Stupidity Is Not IntelligenceDistinctionsPrinciplesRationality
    Frontpage

    191

    Previous:
    Are Your Enemies Innately Evil?
    148 comments227 karma
    Next:
    Argument Screens Off Authority
    86 comments132 karma
    Log in to save where you left off
    Reversed Stupidity Is Not Intelligence
    24Michael5
    28Mqrius
    27poke
    0mat33
    -22joemarzen
    2wedrifid
    -2Bugmaster
    11wedrifid
    0Bugmaster
    1wizzwizz4
    5Manfred
    9Bugmaster
    3Hawisher
    10Spectral_Dragon
    0Mutasir
    9Mutasir
    9Tom_McCabe2
    12orthonormal
    21michael_vassar3
    8pnrjulius
    -1Stephenjk
    5BlueAjah
    1BlueAjah
    5Desrtopa
    8BlueAjah
    1A1987dM
    2Vaniver
    0A1987dM
    -2BlueAjah
    2A1987dM
    -10BlueAjah
    0Kawoomba
    -4BlueAjah
    5Desrtopa
    7A1987dM
    -3BlueAjah
    3A1987dM
    5Vaniver
    0waveman
    2tlhonmey
    11Eliezer Yudkowsky
    0TGGP4
    3burger_flipper2
    14Caledonian2
    0Michael_G.
    2bigjeff5
    3Matthew2
    4Eliezer Yudkowsky
    6steven
    0steven
    4Tiiba2
    0Tom_McCabe2
    5Tom_McCabe2
    1steven
    1Franziska Fischer
    0Ian_C.
    1Burton_MacKenZie
    1michael_vassar3
    0Caledonian2
    2Paul_Crowley2
    2Nick_Tarleton
    3steven
    1kdwmson
    0Caledonian2
    4Doug_S.
    3GreedyAlgorithm
    0Caledonian2
    3Nick_Tarleton
    0michael_vassar3
    -2Caledonian2
    4Eliezer Yudkowsky
    0Matthew2
    -4Caledonian2
    -1Benquo
    6Peter_de_Blanc
    -4Caledonian2
    3Nominull2
    -2Caledonian2
    7pnrjulius
    2Eliezer Yudkowsky
    6Peter_de_Blanc
    5Nominull2
    -4Caledonian2
    -2Caledonian2
    3Eliezer Yudkowsky
    -1Tom3
    0Paul_Crowley
    0Ben_Jones
    0Tedd
    -5Caledonian2
    0Eliezer Yudkowsky
    0Nick_Tarleton
    0Eliezer Yudkowsky
    -1Caledonian2
    0Unknown3
    0Unknown3
    0Ben_Jones
    0Peter_de_Blanc
    1Eliezer Yudkowsky
    2Steve_Sailer
    0Unknown3
    1Brant_Boucher
    0Fal
    2Scaevite
    -1buybuydandavis
    1woodside
    7lessdazed
    0stripey7
    -1BlueAjah
    0A1987dM
    -5Colombi
    2hyporational
    0trickster
    1LESS
    1LESS
    1Jake_NB
    1Franziska Fischer
    3Plasma Ballin'
    1Jan Galkowski
    0VeryPeeved
    3Noahh
    New Comment
    121 comments, sorted by
    oldest
    Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 3:58 PM
    Some comments are truncated due to high volume. (⌘F to expand all)Change truncation settings
    [-]Michael518y240 Response to previous version

    dammit, you could have told me that before I spent so much time building this flying machine made of bone and flesh...

    Reply
    [-]Mqrius12y280 Response to previous version

    ... he shouted down, soaring through the sky.

    Reply
    [-]poke18y270 Response to previous version

    It's amazing how many supposedly rationalist movements fall into the trap of crippling "reverse stupidity." Many in the atheist movement would not have you make positive pronouncements, not have you form organizations, not have you advocate, not have you adopt symbols or give the movement a name, not have you educate children on atheism, and so on, all because "religion does it." I think in the case of atheism the source is unique: every (modern) atheist knows his or her atheism is a product of scientific understanding but few atheists are willing to admit it (having taken up also the false belief that some things are "outside science"), so they go looking for other reasons, and "reverse stupidity" offers such reasons in abundance.

    Reply
    0mat3314y
    "I think in the case of atheism the source is unique: every (modern) atheist knows his or her atheism is a product of scientific understanding..." We are already "stronger" by far, than most of the "pagan" gods. This century, we may well create our own worlds ("virtual", yea - but theology doesn't hold our own world as the "real" for its creator...s). It's all comes down to terminology.
    -22joemarzen14y
    [-]Tom_McCabe218y90 Response to previous version

    "... you have to directly challenge the arguments of Nick Bostrom or Eliezer Yudkowsky post-2003."

    Just what the heck happened in 2003? In any experimental field, particularly this one, having new insights and using them to correct old mistakes is just part of the normal flow of events. Was there a super-super-insight which corrected a super-super-old mistake?

    Reply
    [-]orthonormal13y120 Response to previous version

    He's referring to his coming of age as a rationalist (which he hadn't written yet then); his transhumanist ideas before 2003 were pretty heavily infected with biases (like the Mind Projection Fallacy) that he harps on about now.

    Reply
    [-]michael_vassar318y210 Response to previous version

    If the same majority of smart people as stupid people are conservative then the statement that "Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." is actually completely irrelevant, but I don't think that anyone believes otherwise. If there is a positive correlation between intelligence and the truth of one's beliefs (a claim the truth of which is probably assumed by most people to be true for any definition of intelligence they care about) then the average intelligence of people who hold a given belief is entangled with the truth of that belief and can be used as Bayesian evidence. Evidence is not proof of course, and this heuristic will not be perfectly reliable.

    Reply
    8pnrjulius13y
    The statistical evidence is that liberalism, especially social liberalism, is positively correlated with intelligence. This does not prove that liberalism is correct; but it does provide some mild evidence in that direction.
    -1Stephenjk13y
    How are values are true or false. You seem to be arguing for objectivist morality. Consider, all the greatest minds in Philosophy, specifically ethics, believed in consequentialism. This provides no weight towards or against that particular ethical system. No one has value expertise. People can value one thing (security) or another (liberty). Inset whatever values as necessary. The same is true with progressives and conservatives generally. That fact provides no weight towards what we should value.
    5BlueAjah13y
    No, he's saying that liberalism and conservatism also come with sets of beliefs about the nature of reality and sets of predictions about the consequences of their actions. Some of which are wrong (for both groups). And he's saying we should be able to guess which group has a better understanding of the world by comparing their IQs. Which I think is a valid point, except that the example he chose is one where IQ clearly creates a bias of its own, and one where black people probably miscategorise themselves.
    1BlueAjah13y
    Declaration of bias: I am a liberal, I am intelligent, but I'm not a Democrat or Republican. It's hard to measure liberalism. For example, half the black people say they are conservative and half say they are liberal. But most outsiders would say most black people are liberal (and it's common for 100% of black people in an area to vote for Obama). People judge their liberalism against people like themselves, so it's hard to compare groups. If you count most black people as liberals, then that intelligence difference between liberals and conservatives might disappear (if it exists, I haven't checked). For example, it's a proven fact that Republicans are smarter than Democrats (because of black people with an average IQ of 85 voting Democrat), although just between white people there is no real difference. You also need to consider that intelligence comes with biases, even though it also improves your thinking. Intelligent people are biased towards things that benefit intelligent people, eg. complexity, even if they hurt other people. Intelligent people are biased towards letting people do whatever they want, because intelligent people like themselves will do sensible things when given the choice. They aren't used to stupid people, who do stupid things when allowed to do whatever they want. Intelligent people need freedom, while stupid people need strong inviolable guidelines about acceptable behaviour.
    5Desrtopa13y
    Could you give a citation for this? I've heard other studies claiming the opposite, and I'm not inclined to accept either at face value without knowing what actually went into the studies.
    8BlueAjah13y
    This article has a lot of bell-curve verbal IQ graphs from GSS (General Social Survey) data for the years 2000-2012, using the wordsum score as a measure of intelligence: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/04/verbal-intelligence-by-demographic/ It shows Republicans as smarter than Democrats, but Liberals smarter than Conservatives, and White people smarter than Black people, and some other comparisons.
    1A1987dM13y
    I'd expect the correlation between IQ and WORDSUM to be much weaker when controlling for educational attainment, so some of those graphs will have to be taken with a grain of salt.
    2Vaniver13y
    What would this statement predict about the WORDSUM distributions by educational level? Is that what that graph shows? (If the graph doesn't have enough data to answer that question, how else could you answer it?)
    0A1987dM13y
    So... I think the correlation between IQ and WORDSUM is mostly mediated by education (i.e., in terms of Stuff That Makes Stuff Happen, there's an arrow from IQ to education and one from education and WORDSUM -- there's also one directly from IQ to WORDSUM but it's thinner). So I'd expect that the third graph in that article to show an effect more extreme than if you used IQ instead.
    -2BlueAjah13y
    But educational attainment is directly caused by IQ, so that wouldn't make any sense.
    2A1987dM13y
    Not exclusively IQ -- parents' socio-economic status also matters.
    -10BlueAjah13y
    5Vaniver13y
    Kind of; the great thing about those distributions is that you can talk about more of the distribution than one summary statistic. There's a clump of high IQ democrats, a clump of low IQ democrats, and then a clump of medium IQ democrats, whereas the Republicans look like one clump of medium IQ republicans. There are more Democrats from 0 to 5, more Republicans from about 6 to 8, and a tiny few more Democrats from 9 to 10. This matches with the prediction that there is a significant group of low-vocabulary people who vote predominantly Democratic, the middles voting somewhat more Republican, and the highs about evenly split.
    0waveman9y
    It would provide significantly useful evidence, if we had no other information to determine the truth of the tenets of conservatism. Given that we do, and that the 'evidence' provided by who believes liberalism vs conservatism is not strong, I suggest it is better to ignore it. Why? Because using these sorts of arguments are very dangerous because they so readily degenerate into overvaluing social proof.
    2tlhonmey5y
    As an interesting phenomenon, I've noticed that when I question people in-depth about their beliefs on specific issues what they actually want is often seriously at odds with the political group to which they claim to adhere. It's almost like political affiliations are tribal memberships and people engage in double-think to not risk those memberships even when having that membership doesn't form a coherent whole with the rest of their ideology. To the extent which IQ actually matters, I've noticed two patterns:   Firstly, to a certain extent, those with higher IQ tend to spend more years of their life in school, and most schools have a very definite liberal or conservative culture and actively punish "wrongthink" to a certain degree.  So IQ correlation with political faction may be more indicative of the ratio between schools than anything else. Secondly, once a person's IQ gets into the 130+ range you seem to start finding a higher fraction of people who really despise the stupidity and waste of primate social politics and so prefer consistency of internal logic over maintaining good tribal standing.  These people are actually interesting to talk to about politics because they're actually interested in what the facts are and in whether or not policy actually meets its goals.  Even when you disagree with their conclusions, you don't have to spend all your time pointing out the same contradictions again and again.
    [-]Eliezer Yudkowsky12y110 Response to previous version

    Why would the number of stupid people who believe something anticorrelate with the number of smart people who believe it? Most stupid people and most smart people believe the sky is blue. A shift in the fraction of stupid people who do X can take place without any corresponding shift in the fraction of smart people who do X one way or another. Some smart people actively prefer not to affiliate themselves with stupid people and will try to believe something different, but they are committing the error of the OP and should not be listened to anyway.

    Reply
    [-]TGGP418y00 Response to previous version

    I believe it was John Stuart Mill who said that.

    Nice move using Stalin instead of Hitler, since I get tired of hearing the latter brought up. I myself have endorsed some of Stalin's ideas like "[ideology] in one country" since even if his policies were bad he was at least fairly successful in getting them implemented and lasting for a good while.

    Reply
    [-]burger_flipper218y30 Response to previous version

    I'm with McCabe-- what was the epiphany?

    Reply
    [-]Caledonian218y140 Response to previous version
    every (modern) atheist knows his or her atheism is a product of scientific understanding

    This is wrong.

    Even presuming that you're speaking very informally, and your statement shouldn't be interpreted literally, it's STILL wrong.

    Reply
    [-]Michael_G.18y00 Response to previous version

    "The least convenient path is the only valid one."

    When arguing against and idea honestly with the strongest advocates, is it always true that what is right is not always what is easy? Does making the choice not to argue make someone wrong outright or does not entering into the argument in the first place make the point of view non-existent in some way?

    Reply
    2bigjeff514y
    It makes your argument wrong by default. This is in the context of arguing against someone else's opinion. If you are entering such an argument, the only correct choice is the least convenient - that is, arguing the strongest proponent of the idea you are arguing against.
    [-]Matthew218y30 Response to previous version

    Clarification: Just yudkowsky after 2003 or yudkowsky and bostrom together, perhaps sharing the same mistake? It would be usefull to know so I don't make the same mistake, et al.

    Reply
    [-]Eliezer Yudkowsky18y40 Response to previous version

    Matthew: Just me after 2003, not Bostrom.

    I call the experience my "Bayesian enlightenment" but that doesn't really say anything, does it? Guess you'll have to keep reading Overcoming Bias until I get there.

    Reply
    [-]steven18y60 Response to previous version

    michael vassar: You're right when you say a correlation of intelligence with liberalism is evidence for liberalism, but that's not because the stupid people are conservative, it's because the smart people are liberal. At least I think that's what Eliezer meant.

    Reply
    [-]steven18y00 Response to previous version

    Though you could see the conservativeness of stupid people as strengthening the evidence provided by smart liberal people because it points at there being more of a conservative human baseline to deviate from.

    Reply
    [-]Tiiba218y40 Response to previous version

    """A car with a broken engine cannot drive backward at 200 mph, even if the engine is really really broken."""

    Wrong!

    "When the player's truck is put into reverse, the truck will accelerate infinitely; however, the truck will halt instantly when the reverse key is released."

    Reply
    [-]Tom_McCabe218y00 Response to previous version

    "I call the experience my "Bayesian enlightenment" but that doesn't really say anything, does it?"

    Note to readers: Eli discovered Bayesian probability theory (in general) much earlier than 2003, see http://www.singinst.org/upload/CFAI//design/clean.html#programmer_bayesbinding.

    Reply
    [-]Tom_McCabe218y50 Response to previous version

    "You're right when you say a correlation of intelligence with liberalism is evidence for liberalism, but that's not because the stupid people are conservative, it's because the smart people are liberal."

    If you assume the population is partitioned into liberals and conservatives, a high percentage of stupid conservatives implies a high percentage of smart liberals, and vice-versa. If smart liberals are Bayesian evidence for B, then smart conservatives must be Bayesian evidence against B (note that 'smart' here is relative to the average, not some absolute level of smartness).

    Reply
    [-]steven18y10 Response to previous version

    Can we agree on the following: if you pick a random stupid person and ask for an opinion on B, and the stupid person says B is false, this cannot be evidence against B unless you have background knowledge on the fraction of people who think B, in which case all the work is really being done by the indirect inference about the opinions of smarter people, so calling the stupid person's opinion negative evidence is misleading even if strictly speaking correct?

    Reply
    1Franziska Fischer3y
    I'm not sure if I'd agree on that, especially when it comes to political topics, stupid people with strong exposition to mass media tend to perform significantly worse than random: Thus using the opposite of what said stupid person supported seems to have at least a mildly higher chance of being true in T/F question.
    [-]Ian_C.18y00 Response to previous version

    Isn't the truth of a thing (such as a sentence or artwork) determined by how closely it matches reality? And the match-level is a function of the identity of reality and of the thing. So there is no mention of smart or dumb people anywhere in that.

    Reply
    [-]Burton_MacKenZie18y10 Response to previous version

    Good post, and good job putting this into a common language framework. If you convince only one or two more people to think clearly, it was worth it! B

    Reply
    [-]michael_vassar318y10 Response to previous version

    Steven: Yes we can, with the caveat you mentioned earlier about the human baseline. Of course, that point is plausibly precisely what Mill or whoever was pointing to with his comment.

    Reply
    [-]Caledonian218y00 Response to previous version
    this cannot be evidence against B unless you have background knowledge on the fraction of people who think B,

    No. The "unless" clause is still incorrect. We can know a great deal about the fraction of people who think B, and it still cannot serve even as meta-evidence for or against B.

    There is an ongoing confusion here about the difference between evidence and meta-evidence. It is as obvious and important as the difference between experimental analysis and meta-analysis, and it is NOT being acknowledged.

    Reply
    [-]Paul_Crowley218y20 Response to previous version

    "No. The "unless" clause is still incorrect. We can know a great deal about the fraction of people who think B, and it still cannot serve even as meta-evidence for or against B."

    This can't be right. I have a hundred measuring devices. Ninety are broken and give a random answer with an unknown distribution, while ten give an answer that strongly correlates with the truth. Ninety say A and ten say B. If I examine a random meter that says B and find that it is broken, then surely that has to count as strong evidence against B.

    This is probably an unnecessarily subtle point, of course; the overall thrust of the argument is of course correct.

    Reply
    [-]Nick_Tarleton18y20 Response to previous version

    We can know a great deal about the fraction of people who think B, and it still cannot serve even as meta-evidence for or against B. There is an ongoing confusion here about the difference between evidence and meta-evidence.

    No. From a Bayesian perspective, there is no difference other than strength. This is, of course, different from saying that the truth is what the authorities say it is, but I think that's what you're hearing it as.

    Reply
    [-]steven18y30 Response to previous version

    Actually, if I'm not wrong (and it still confuses me), arguments from authority have a different conditional probability structure than "normal" arguments.

    Reply
    [-]kdwmson18y10 Response to previous version

    "You're right when you say a correlation of intelligence with liberalism is evidence for liberalism, but that's not because the stupid people are conservative, it's because the smart people are liberal."

    That seems to me exactly wrong. A proposition's truth or falseness is not entangled in the intelligence of the people who profess the proposition. Alien cultists do not change the probability of poorly hidden aliens. Dumb people who argue for evolution over creationism do not raise the probability that Genesis is natural history, no matter how dumb they are. Conservative Proposition X will be true or not true regardless of whether it is supported by a very intelligent conservative or by a very dumb conservative.

    Reply
    [-]Caledonian218y00 Response to previous version
    From a Bayesian perspective, there is no difference other than strength.

    That's precisely why Bayes' Theorem isn't all you need to know in order to reason. It's an immensely powerful tool, but a grossly inadequate methodology.

    Again: there is a great deal of confusion about the difference between evidence and meta-evidence here.

    Reply
    [-]Doug_S.18y43 Response to previous version

    If I do find someone whose statement seem to reliably anti-correlate with reality, am I justified in taking their making a statement as evidence that the statement is false?

    Reply
    [-]GreedyAlgorithm18y30 Response to previous version

    Caledonian: please define meta-evidence, then, since I think Eliezer has adequately defined evidence. Clear up our confusion!

    Reply
    [-]Caledonian218y00 Response to previous version

    Eliezer has NOT adequately defined evidence. There is no data that isn't tied to every event through the operations of causality.

    Reply
    [-]Nick_Tarleton18y30 Response to previous version
    To say it abstractly: For an event to be evidence about a target of inquiry, it has to happen differently in a way that's entangled with the different possible states of the target. (To say it technically: There has to be Shannon mutual information between the evidential event and the target of inquiry, relative to your current state of uncertainty about both of them.) Entanglement can be contagious when processed correctly, which is why you need eyes and a brain. If photons reflect off your shoelaces and hit a rock, the rock won't change much. The r
    ... (read more)
    Reply
    [-]michael_vassar318y00 Response to previous version

    Yes Doug. Furthermore, if you can find a pair of people the difference of who's opinions seems to correlate with reality you can use that as evidence, which is the pattern pointed to by the original quote.

    Reply
    [-]Caledonian218y-20 Response to previous version

    The definition Eliezer offered, and the way in which he used the term later, are not connected in any meaningful way. His definition is wrong.

    And you haven't tried to define meta-evidence at all.

    Do you know what a meta-analysis study is?

    Reply
    [-]Eliezer Yudkowsky18y40 Response to previous version

    Beware of feeding trolls. If the one can offer naught but flat assertions, you may be better off saying, "Let the audience decide." If you engage and offer defense to each repeated flat assertion, you encourage them to do even less work in the future, since it offers the same attention-reward.

    Reply
    [-]Matthew218y00 Response to previous version

    @yudkowsky I would be happy if I could judge the merit of Bayes for myself versus the frequentists approach. I doubt UTD faculty have seen the light, but who knows, they might. I wonder even more deeply if a thorough understanding of Bayes gives any insight into Epistemology? If you can answer Bayes does offer insight into epistemology I know for sure I will be around for many more months. If I remember correctly, we both have the same IQ (140) yet I am much worse at mathematics. OF course, my dad is an a/c technician, not a physicist.

    I enjoy your hard work and insights Eliezer. Also Caledonians comments, mainly for their mystery.

    Reply
    [-]Caledonian218y-40 Response to previous version

    Likewise, if you attempt to engage people who make foolish proclamations and ambiguous definitions, it can reward them with attention and conversation. The benefits to puncturing shoddy arguments are often greater than the prices that need to be paid to do so.

    Eliezer has repeatedly offered a definition for a term, gone on to mention that this definition is incomplete, and then failed to explicitly refine the definition or provide a process for the reader to update it. Despite recognizing the fallacious nature of conclusions or arguments supported with su... (read more)

    Reply
    [-]Benquo18y-10 Response to previous version

    Caledonian,

    What do you mean by meta-evidence? How isMr. Yudkowsky's definition of evidence not adequate for the use in this post?

    Reply
    [-]Peter_de_Blanc18y60 Response to previous version

    How about this for a precise definition: A is evidence about B if p(A | B) != p(A | ~B).

    Of course, by this definition, almost everything is evidence about almost everything else. So we'd like to talk about the strength of evidence. A good candidate is log p(A | B) - log p(A | ~B). This is the number that gets added to your log odds for B when you observe A.

    Reply
    [-]Caledonian218y-40 Response to previous version
    Of course, by this definition, almost everything is evidence about almost everything else.

    Ding ding ding!

    It may even be the case that, by that definition, everything is evidence about everything else. And clearly that doesn't match our everyday understanding and use of the term - it doesn't even match our formal understanding and use of the term.

    What's missing from the definition that we need, in order to make the definition match our understanding?

    Reply
    [-]Nominull218y30 Response to previous version

    But everything is evidence about everything else. I don't see the problem at all.

    Reply
    [-]Caledonian218y-20 Response to previous version
    But everything is evidence about everything else. I don't see the problem at all.

    Given the circumference of Jupiter around its equator, the height of the Statue of Liberty, and the price of tea in China, can you tell me what's sitting atop my computer monitor right now?

    If so, what is it?

    If not, why not? I gave you plenty of evidence.

    Reply
    7pnrjulius13y
    I know with 99% probability that the item on top of your computer monitor is not Jupiter or the Statue of Liberty. And a major piece of information that leads me to that conclusion is... you guessed it, the circumference of Jupiter and the height of the Statue of Liberty. So there you go, this "irrelevant" information actually does narrow my probability estimates just a little bit. Not a lot. But we didn't say it was good evidence, just that it was, in fact, evidence. (Pedantic: You could have a model of Jupiter or Liberty on top of your computer, but that's not the same thing as having the actual thing.)
    [-]Eliezer Yudkowsky18y20 Response to previous version

    Steven, I reduxified your argument as Argument Screens Off Authority.

    Reply
    [-]Peter_de_Blanc18y60 Response to previous version

    If not, why not? I gave you plenty of evidence.

    Caledonian, you gave evidence, but you certainly didn't give plenty of it. I see you ignored the part of my post where I talked about how to quantify evidence. The important question isn't whether or not we have evidence; it's how much evidence we have.

    Let me make an analogy. I can define sugar as sucrose; a specific carbohydrate whose molecular structure you can view on wikipedia. I might say that a substance is "sugary" if it contains some sugar. But by this definition, almost everything is sugary,... (read more)

    Reply
    [-]Nominull218y50 Response to previous version

    Evidence is like gravity. Everything is pulling on everything else, but in most cases the pull is weak enough that we can pretty much ignore it. What you have done, Caledonian, is akin to telling me the position of three one-gram weights, and then asking me to calculate the motion of Charon based on that.

    Reply
    [-]Caledonian218y-40 Response to previous version
    If, after I have pointed this out, you offer me some sugar cookies containing 1 molecule of sucrose, and then defend yourself by saying that according to my definition, they are indeed sugary, you are being obnoxious. I already told you how to quantify sugariness, and you ignored it for rhetorical reasons.

    No, I'm not being obnoxious. I'm pointing out that your definition is bad by showing that it leads directly to common and absurd conclusions.

    By Eliezer's definition, even the thing he offers as an example of a thing that isn't evidence IS STILL EVIDENC... (read more)

    Reply
    [-]Caledonian218y-20 Response to previous version
    Everything is pulling on everything else, but in most cases the pull is weak enough that we can pretty much ignore it. What you have done, Caledonian, is akin to telling me the position of three one-gram weights, and then asking me to calculate the motion of Charon based on that.

    So close... and yet, so far.

    I agree with you that, even if I gave you absolute, complete, and utterly precise data on the three weights, there is no way you could derive the motion of Charon from that.

    So: are the three weights evidence of Charon's movement?

    Reply
    [-]Eliezer Yudkowsky18y30 Response to previous version

    For any that may be genuinely confused: If you read What is Evidence?, An Intuitive Explanation of Bayesian Reasoning, and A Technical Explanation of Technical Explanation, you will understand how to define evidence both qualitatively and quantitatively.

    For the rest of you: Stop feeding the troll.

    Reply
    [-]Tom318y-10 Response to previous version

    Caledonian is just trying to point out that the keys to rationalism are family values and a literal interpretation of the Bible. I don't know why you all can't see something so obvious.

    Observe:

    "It may even be the case that, by that definition, everything is evidence about everything else. And clearly that doesn't match our everyday understanding and use of the term - it doesn't even match our formal understanding and use of the term.

    What's missing from the definition that we need, in order to make the definition match our understanding?"

    Jesus.

    &qu... (read more)

    Reply
    [-]Paul_Crowley18y00 Response to previous version

    If this is the same Caledonian who used to post to the Pharyngula blog, he's barred from there now with good reason.

    Is there a cognitive bias at work that makes it hard for people not to feed trolls?

    Reply
    [-]Ben_Jones18y00 Response to previous version

    Is there a mathematical expression in probability for the notion that unless someone is making a special effort (concerted or otherwise) they can't be any 'wronger' than 50% accuracy? Subsequently betting the other way would be generating evidence from nothing - creating information. Why no mention of thermodynamics in this post & thread?

    Not to feed the troll or anything, but yes, the masses and positions of the three weights are evidence about Charon's movement. Why? Because if you calculated Charon's orbit without knowing their masses, positions etc,... (read more)

    Reply
    0Tedd12y
    That's exactly what I was wondering. A perfect score presumably means either an amazing coincidence or perfect intelligence within the context of the decisions made. (Or is it just perfect information?) And a perfectly incorrect score would then mean the same thing. And a score that exactly matches randomness would seem to involve no intelligence or information at all, although it, too, could presumably also result from perfect information, if that was the objective.
    [+]Caledonian218y-50 Response to previous version
    [-]Eliezer Yudkowsky18y00 Response to previous version

    Ben Jones, I don't see the human existence of religion as having any evidential bearing on the existence of a Super Happy Agent sufficiently like a person and unlike evolution that theists would actually notice its existence. Pretty much the same probability as an object one foot across and composed of chocolate cake existing in the asteroid belt. For interventionist Super Happy Agents, same probability as elves stealing your socks.

    Incidentally, with sufficiently precise measurements it's perfectly possible to get a gravitational map of the entire Solar System off a random household object.

    Reply
    [-]Nick_Tarleton18y00 Response to previous version

    Ben Jones, I don't see the human existence of religion as having any evidential bearing on the existence of a Super Happy Agent sufficiently like a person and unlike evolution that theists would actually notice its existence.

    Any evidential bearing? Surely P(religion X exists|religion X is true) is higher than P(religion X exists|religion X is false).

    Reply
    [-]Eliezer Yudkowsky18y00 Response to previous version

    Nick, I don't see how that follows for the supermajority of religions that are logically self-contradictory, except in the sense that if 1=2 then the probability of the Sun rising tomorrow is nearly 200%. Furthermore, Ben Jones asked about religion in general rather than any specific religion, and religion in general most certainly cannot be true.

    Reply
    [-]Caledonian218y-10 Response to previous version
    Incidentally, with sufficiently precise measurements it's perfectly possible to get a gravitational map of the entire Solar System off a random household object.

    Also incorrect. More than one configuration of masses can have exactly the same effect on the object. No matter how precisely you measure the properties of the object, you can never distinguish between those configurations.

    Reply
    [-]Unknown318y00 Response to previous version

    In general, any claim maintained by even a single human being to be true will be more probable, simply based on the authority of that human being, than some random claim such as the chocolate cake claim, which is not believed by anyone.

    There are possibly some exceptions to this (and possibly not), but in general there is no particular reason to include religions as exceptions.

    Reply
    [-]Unknown318y00 Response to previous version

    I should add that this is true about self-contradictory religions as well. For the probability that I mistakenly interpret the religion to be self-contradictory is greater than the probability that the chocolate cake is out there.

    Reply
    [-]Ben_Jones18y00 Response to previous version

    "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

    Nick: Why should an atheistic rationalist have any more faith a a religion that exists than a religion that doesn't? I don't belive in God; the testimony of a man that claims he spoke to God in a burning bush doesn't sway me to update my probability. I Defy The Data!

    My 'lack of faith' stems from a probability-based judgment that there is no Super Agent. With this as my starting point, I have as much reason to worship Yoda as I do God.

    Reply
    [-]Peter_de_Blanc18y00 Response to previous version

    Ben Jones, I don't see the human existence of religion as having any evidential bearing on the existence of a Super Happy Agent sufficiently like a person and unlike evolution that theists would actually notice its existence. Pretty much the same probability as an object one foot across and composed of chocolate cake existing in the asteroid belt. For interventionist Super Happy Agents, same probability as elves stealing your socks.

    Eli, you're just saying that you don't believe in the existence of a SHASLAPAUETTWANIE. But since you labeled it with: ".... (read more)

    Reply
    [-]Eliezer Yudkowsky18y10 Response to previous version

    Eli, you're just saying that you don't believe in the existence of a SHASLAPAUETTWANIE. But since you labeled it with: "...that theists would actually notice its existence," then clearly the existence of religion has some evidential bearing on the existence of a SHASLAPAUETTWANIE.

    (Blink.)

    Um, I concede to your crushing logic, I guess... what exactly am I conceding again?

    Reply
    [-]Steve_Sailer18y20 Response to previous version

    Flying saucer cultism was helped along by secret Cold War technological advances that were accidentally witnessed by civilians.

    For example, the famous 1947 Roswell incident was the crashing of an American strategic reconnaissance super-balloon that was supposed to float over the Soviet Union and snap pictures, which would then be recovered many thousands of miles away. That's why it was made out of the latest high-tech materials that were unfamiliar to people in small town New Mexico in 1947.

    The KGB used to generate flying saucer stories in Latin America... (read more)

    Reply
    [-]Unknown318y00 Response to previous version

    Steve, maybe this was your point anyway, but the incidents you mention indicate that the existence of flying saucer cults is evidence for the existence of aliens (namely by showing that the cults were based on seeing something in the real world.) No doubt they aren't much evidence, especially given the prior improbability, but they are certainly evidence.

    Reply
    [-]Brant_Boucher18y10 Response to previous version

    "Not all Conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are
    Conservatives." (The British Conservative Party was the brunt of this quip by J.S. Mills.) It helps to Venn diagram this. I find that many stupid conservatives assume that conservatives are the majority, which leaves few stupid people to be liberals or anything else (although a majority of Liberals are assumed by stupid conservatives to be stupid people). But if conservatives are not a majority, there are many stupid people who MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be liberals. I assume there are plenty... (read more)

    Reply
    [-]Fal14y00 Response to previous version

    pokes head in and looks around Okay, I'm new here, and maybe I shouldn't open by poking a sleeping dragon, but I can't help but try and take a small crack at this. firm nod

    As I understand it, the crux of the article is concern about irrational arguments which imply that valid points and rational arguments should be discarded if they are somehow associated with irrational, unsuccessful, or commonly disliked people. Many of the comments on the conservatives quote seem to ignore that context.

    Also, debating the semantics of the article rather than its core mea... (read more)

    Reply
    2Scaevite14y
    Even though stupid people sometimes get things right, and smart people sometimes get things wrong, that doesn't say anything about how often they do so (comparatively). You can't use those rare cases to negate the 'assumption' that intelligence aids correct judgements. It just means that intelligence is not a 100% guarantee of correctness - but we knew that anyway. As it stands, the usefulness of different aspects of intelligence - reasoning, analytical ability and so on - in assessing probablities and making judgements is fairly obvious. Also, even if the personal beliefs of one individual don't serve as very strong evidence, a large-scale trend towards more intelligent people favouring one side of the argument should be taken into account. It's not so much evidence in itself as meta-evidence that a) other people who may know things you don't, tend to favour one option; and b) other people with the same knowledge as you, but better processing capabilities, tend to favour that option. With more complex issues which you may not have much personal experience of, this could be a rather substantial factor in your probability assessment. I should also point out that it's intelligence, not stupidity, that is important. Intelligent supporters of a view can be taken as reasonably strong evidence, as seen above. Stupid people have less intelligence, therefore their view should be weaker evidence - but even a stupid person supporting something INCREASES the probability that that view is correct, albeit by such a small amount that it can almost be ignored in favour of assessing what smart people think. Of course, then there's the worldview difference to consider, and the fact that even if they can make a better decision than you, their "better" option may not lead to a more desirable world from your perspective.
    [-]buybuydandavis14y-10 Response to previous version

    In Hansonian terms: Your instinctive willingness to believe something will change along with your willingness to affiliate with people who are known for believing it - quite apart from whether the belief is actually true.

    And that's why politics is more about identity than predictive truth.

    Reply
    [-]woodside14y10 Response to previous version

    Many people are unsatisfied with their monogamous relationships, therefore polyamory must be great?

    Reply
    [-]lessdazed13y70 Response to previous version

    I still believe in Global Warming. Do you?

    -Ted Kaczynski, The Unabomber

    -Heartland Institute billboard

    From the press release:

    1. Who appears on the billboards?

    The billboard series features Ted Kaczynski, the infamous Unabomber; Charles Manson, a mass murderer; and Fidel Castro, a tyrant. Other global warming alarmists who may appear on future billboards include Osama bin Laden and James J. Lee (who took hostages inside the headquarters of the Discovery Channel in 2010).

    These rogues and villains were chosen because they made public statements about ho

    ... (read more)
    Reply
    0stripey710y
    That quote from J. S. Mill would be perfect for a pasted-on "billboard improvement."
    [-]BlueAjah13y-10 Response to previous version

    Again, I disagree. Cults can't form around anything. They can only form around issues that would make them social or intellectual outcasts. And in a world in which there were poorly hidden aliens, too many intelligent people would be of the opinion that there are poorly hidden aliens, and no such cult could arise.

    But the more important point is... IF I start to think that there are poorly hidden aliens, that could be due to one of two reasons: either because I have reasonable evidence for their existence, or because I'm being influenced by some sort of bia... (read more)

    Reply
    [-]A1987dM12y00 Response to previous version

    It's not much evidence one way or the other.

    I'd guess P(cults|aliens) would be noticeably bigger than P(cults|~aliens).

    It's just that the prior P(aliens) is so tiny that even the posterior P(aliens|cults) is negligible.

    Reply
    [+]Colombi11y-50 Response to previous version
    [-]trickster8y00 Response to previous version

    I think that this has deal with boundeed rationality. Perfect knowledge required endless ammount of time- and all human have only limited lifetime. So, ammount of time for each dessision limited even more. Therefore we can not explore all argument. And I think - it would be a good strategy to throw away some arguments right in the begining and don't waste time on them. Instead you can pay more attention to more plausible one. And this give you a opportunity to build a relatively accurate model of the world in relativly short time. If you not agree- conside... (read more)

    Reply
    [-]LESS5y10

    "The conditional probability P(cults|aliens) isn’t less than P(cults|aliens) "

    Shouldn't this be " The conditional probability P(cults|~aliens) isn’t less than P(cults|aliens) ?" It seems trivial that a probability is not less than itself, and the preceding text seems to propose the modified version included in this comment.

    [This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
    1LESS5y
    I've just realized that there's a footnote addressing this. My apologies.
    [-]Jake_NB4y10

    I'm reserved as to the corollary that only winning against the strongest advocate of an idea holds ANY meaning to disprove the idea.

    For one, there could be a better arguer. If there is a better advocate of the intelligence explosion than Eliezer, unlikely as they may seem, who just won't go public and keeps to private circles, would it do nothing to win against the former? Taken another step further, if it is likely there ever will be such a proponent, does that invalidate all present and past efforts?

    For another, the quality of an arguer can only be made ... (read more)

    Reply
    [-]Franziska Fischer3y11

    One point Hans Rosling tried to convey constantly in Factfulness is that most stupid people perform significantly worse than random (than "the chimps" as he portrayed it). He argued that this results from biases etc. If this generalises to more than people's perception of how the world is doing and increases in strength for less intelligent people or people with more exposition to mass media, this could potentially apply to silliness and alien intervention not being orthogonal but having significant correlation as well. Similarly, "most stupid people vote ... (read more)

    Reply
    [-]Plasma Ballin'2y30

    I actually think it is possible for someone's beliefs to anti-correlate with reality without being smart enough to know what really is true just to reverse it. I can think of at least three ways this could happen, beyond extremely unlikely coincidences. The first two are that a person could be systematically deceived by someone else, until they have more false beliefs then true ones, and the second is that systematic cognitive biases could reliably distort their beliefs. The third is the most interesting one, though: If someone has a belief that many of th... (read more)

    Reply
    [-]Jan Galkowski2y10

    At least for me and therefore possibly others it would be useful to put a hyperlink on an Important Name to go off to a review of their primary argument. For instance "Hanson". Wonderful writeup.

    Thanks.

    Reply
    [-]VeryPeeved1y00

    "If a hundred inventors fail to build flying machines using metal and wood and canvas, it doesn’t imply that what you really need is a flying machine of bone and flesh."

    Although we do, because that would be awesome.

    Reply
    [-]Noahh6mo30

    Even though cults would indeed arise even without genuine extraterrestrial encounters, I think that the actual presence of aliens would increase the probability and # of flying saucer cults. Actual alien encounters would likely inspire some # of these sorts of beliefs, making the formation of cults even more probable than in a world without aliens. Essentially, while the baseline probability of cult formation might be high due to "human silliness", the added “signal” from genuine alien events could tip the scales further in favor of cult emergence.

    Thus the conditional probability P(cults|aliens) would be greater than P(cults|!aliens).

    Reply
    Moderation Log
    Curated and popular this week
    121Comments

    “. . . then our people on that time-line went to work with corrective action. Here.”

    He wiped the screen and then began punching combinations. Page after page appeared, bearing accounts of people who had claimed to have seen the mysterious disks, and each report was more fantastic than the last.

    “The standard smother-out technique,” Verkan Vall grinned. “I only heard a little talk about the ‘flying saucers,’ and all of that was in joke. In that order of culture, you can always discredit one true story by setting up ten others, palpably false, parallel to it.”

    —H. Beam Piper, Police Operation

    Piper had a point. Pers’nally, I don’t believe there are any poorly hidden aliens infesting these parts. But my disbelief has nothing to do with the awful embarrassing irrationality of flying saucer cults—at least, I hope not.

    You and I believe that flying saucer cults arose in the total absence of any flying saucers. Cults can arise around almost any idea, thanks to human silliness. This silliness operates orthogonally to alien intervention: We would expect to see flying saucer cults whether or not there were flying saucers. Even if there were poorly hidden aliens, it would not be any less likely for flying saucer cults to arise. The conditional probability P(cults|aliens) isn’t less than P(cults|¬aliens), unless you suppose that poorly hidden aliens would deliberately suppress flying saucer cults.1 By the Bayesian definition of evidence, the observation “flying saucer cults exist” is not evidence against the existence of flying saucers. It’s not much evidence one way or the other.

    This is an application of the general principle that, as Robert Pirsig puts it, “The world’s greatest fool may say the Sun is shining, but that doesn’t make it dark out.”2

    If you knew someone who was wrong 99.99% of the time on yes-or-no questions, you could obtain 99.99% accuracy just by reversing their answers. They would need to do all the work of obtaining good evidence entangled with reality, and processing that evidence coherently, just to anticorrelate that reliably. They would have to be superintelligent to be that stupid.

    A car with a broken engine cannot drive backward at 200 mph, even if the engine is really really broken.

    If stupidity does not reliably anticorrelate with truth, how much less should human evil anticorrelate with truth? The converse of the halo effect is the horns effect: All perceived negative qualities correlate. If Stalin is evil, then everything he says should be false. You wouldn’t want to agree with Stalin, would you?

    Stalin also believed that 2 + 2 = 4. Yet if you defend any statement made by Stalin, even “2 + 2 = 4,” people will see only that you are “agreeing with Stalin”; you must be on his side.

    Corollaries of this principle:

    • To argue against an idea honestly, you should argue against the best arguments of the strongest advocates. Arguing against weaker advocates proves nothing, because even the strongest idea will attract weak advocates. If you want to argue against transhumanism or the intelligence explosion, you have to directly challenge the arguments of Nick Bostrom or Eliezer Yudkowsky post-2003. The least convenient path is the only valid one.3
    • Exhibiting sad, pathetic lunatics, driven to madness by their apprehension of an Idea, is no evidence against that Idea. Many New Agers have been made crazier by their personal apprehension of quantum mechanics.
    • Someone once said, “Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.” If you cannot place yourself in a state of mind where this statement, true or false, seems completely irrelevant as a critique of conservatism, you are not ready to think rationally about politics.
    • Ad hominem argument is not valid.
    • You need to be able to argue against genocide without saying “Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews.” If Hitler hadn’t advocated genocide, would it thereby become okay?
    • In Hansonian terms: Your instinctive willingness to believe something will change along with your willingness to affiliate with people who are known for believing it—quite apart from whether the belief is actually true. Some people may be reluctant to believe that God does not exist, not because there is evidence that God does exist, but rather because they are reluctant to affiliate with Richard Dawkins or those darned “strident” atheists who go around publicly saying “God does not exist.”
    • If your current computer stops working, you can’t conclude that everything about the current system is wrong and that you need a new system without an AMD processor, an ATI video card, a Maxtor hard drive, or case fans—even though your current system has all these things and it doesn’t work. Maybe you just need a new power cord.
    • If a hundred inventors fail to build flying machines using metal and wood and canvas, it doesn’t imply that what you really need is a flying machine of bone and flesh. If a thousand projects fail to build Artificial Intelligence using electricity-based computing, this doesn’t mean that electricity is the source of the problem. Until you understand the problem, hopeful reversals are exceedingly unlikely to hit the solution.4

    1Read “P(cults|aliens)” as “the probability of UFO cults given that aliens have visited Earth,” and read “P(cults|¬aliens)” as “the probability of UFO cults given that aliens have not visited Earth.”

    2Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values, 1st ed. (New York: Morrow, 1974).

    3See Scott Alexander, “The Least Convenient Possible World,” Less Wrong (blog), December 2, 2018, http://lesswrong.com/lw/2k/the_least_convenient_possible_world/.

    4See also “Selling Nonapples.” http://lesswrong.com/lw/vs/selling_nonapples.

    Mentioned in
    461100 Tips for a Better Life
    153Dissolving the Question
    137Undiscriminating Skepticism
    135Think carefully before calling RL policies "agents"
    130Where Recursive Justification Hits Bottom
    Load More (5/50)