All of blashimov's Comments + Replies

Do we have a basic financial literacy category? It's perhaps well known to most LW-ers but I know we get the occasional aspiring rationalist high school / early college student and this stuff really isn't taught in school.

There is []

So what I'm getting is that if I already am investing in Vanguard, and being reasonable, the added value of betterment if any isn't worth my time? This is what I was trying to figure out today.

I have taken the survey, including all questions.

My understanding, you might believe in some continued life after death, something about human souls, any sort of supernatural things, but not believe in a personified interacting deity who gave humans orders like worship me, do this/that etc., nor be a deist who thinks there is such a being but doesn't give orders for some reason.

Okay. Good thing I submitted "Atheist and not spiritual", then! I guess that makes sense. When I hear "Atheist but spiritual" my first response tends to be "Sure, I would appreciate songs and rituals about the wonders of science and the awe-inspiring nature of the universe. That's spirituality, right?" -- and my first response tends not to be "Oh, right, I guess there technically could be people who believe in supernatural stuff that's not gods." Perhaps because I tend to forget such beliefs exist...

All the extra credit questions!

You might repeat Intelligence Amplification here, as I was confused until I read the previous post links.

Naive hypothesis: Given the Flynn effect, and that college students are younger than the general population, could that explain the difference? That Coscott's conditional "If US citizens between 18 and 24 are representative of the entire population in terms of IQ" is false?

IQ tests are at least supposed to be normed for the age group in question, in order to eliminate such effects, but I don't know how it's done for the estimates in question.
0Scott Garrabrant10y
I think that is likely.

Wait, what? This might be a little off topic, but if you assert that they lack evidence and are drawing conclusions based on motivated reasoning, that seems highly relevant and not ad hominem. I guess it could be unnecessary, as you might try to focus exactly on their evidence, but it would seem reasonable to look at the evidence they present, and say "this is consistent with motivated reasoning, for example you describe many things that would happen by chance but nothing similar contradictory, so there seems to be some confirmation bias" etc.

Fighting has a huge signalling component: when viewed in isolation, a fight might be trivially, obviously, a net negative for both participants. However, either or both! participants might in the future win more concessions for their willingness to fight alone than the loss of the fight. As humans are adaption executers, a certain willingness to fight, to seek revenge, etc. is pretty common. At least, this seems to be the dominant theory and sensible to me.

Because he's asking about people who only read the open thread. Here he could get response from the people who do read LW in general, inclusive of the open thread, and people who read only the open thread (he'll miss the people who don't read the open thread). Outside the open thread, he gets no response at all from people who only read the open thread.

Large mammals only? Is a domesticated cow smarter than a rat? A pigeon? Tough call.

Take the leadership feat, and hope your GM is lazy enough to let you level them. More practically, is it a skills problem or as I would guess an agency problem? Can impress on them the importance of acting vs not? Lend them the Power of Accountability? 7 habits of highly effective people? Can you compliment them every time they show initiative? etc. I think the solution is too specific to individuals for general advice, nor do I know a general advice book beyond those in the same theme as those mentioned.

Heh. Agency. I've just noticed how many people I interact with are operating almost totally on cached thoughts, and getting caught up in a lot of traps that they could avoid if they were in the correct frame of mind (ie One Of Us.) But you have to be ... motivated correctly, I guess, in order to turn to rationalism or some other brand of originality. Goes my reasoning. Yeah, could be. I figure it's always possible someone already solved this, though, so I'd rather find there's already a best practice than kick myself much later for reinventing the wheel ( or worse, giving up!)

True, so when I finally have money I guess I will take another look.

Well, if there's a line between fun enough to play and unpleasant enough not to, learning speed is almost certainly higher for playing the game relative to nothing.

Isn't angel investing for the relatively wealthy? What do you do around the 10k range? Especially considering that the less capital you have, the better working relative to spending time investing becomes.

Around the 10k range you are right that Angel investing probably isn't optimal. On the other hand 10k doesn't pay for any retirement either.

For example, this absolutely works with say, an electric stove.

I am not, but apparently there is at least one person who could.

[link] XKCD on saving time; Image URL (for hotlinking/embedding): Though it will probably be mostly unseen as the month is about to end.

  1. Sure, in this case.
  2. The US is part of the world.
  3. I was expressing my thoughts on a general and common failure mode that I have attempted to correct, and that this article provides evidence I have failed to do so.

It seems to me that, given people are already sexist, and given that telling someone their group has a lower average directly lowers their performance, such a re-weighting should never ever be used.

I would dearly like citations for everything - I would really like to know if I am still terrible at estimating how awful the world is.

Not the world, the US.

You might be remembering the times you are correct more clearly than the times you are wrong.

I thought about it, but I think I remember being surprised better than being right. But who knows, I did not keep count.

That may be too much to ask for. Besides, if the horse evidence had worked, you'd be forced to turn around and apply it to may not have worked for her, but it has worked on some theists.

I wonder if this is a slight reaction to another kind of YA fiction, in which adults are useless, often from stupidity.

I have always had an animal fear of death, a fate I rank second only to having to sit through a rock concert. My wife tries to be consoling about mortality and assures me that death is a natural part of life, and that we all die sooner or later. Oddly this news, whispered into my ear at 3 a.m., causes me to leap screaming from the bed, snap on every light in the house and play my recording of “The Stars and Stripes Forever” at top volume till the sun comes up.

-Woody Allen EDIT: Fixed formatting.

FWIW, it seems like whatever is parsing the markdown in these comments, whenever it sees a ">" for a quote at the beginning of a paragraph it'll keep reading until the next paragraph break, i.e. double-whitespace at the end of a line or two linebreaks.
Formatting is broken. Great quote, though.

Yeesh, I know she at least once remembered the right section and page, then read from the book, and I feel like she's quoted books before, but darned if I can find it easily.

Yes, while it was clear on a second reading this was also clear, thanks.

It's even worse than that, depending on how you start, you can easily get 100s of thousands of nodes...

It's even worse than that, the function for the maximum number of nodes you end up before they start going down, if you play using the worst possible strategy, increases faster than any function which Peano arithmetic can prove to be total (i.e., it grows faster than any Turing machine run on various inputs, which Peano arithmetic can prove to halt for any input). To say that this grows faster than the Ackermann function is putting it very mildly.

I'm going to have to read the proof of the hydra game, because I pretty quickly got over 2.8k nodes and still in increasing...

Well, it doesn't say you have to win quickly. I was skeptical at first, but consider it this way: At each step you make a subtree simpler, and then insert an arbitrary number of copies of the simpler subtree. Eventually you must end up with a large number of copies of the simplest possible subtree, a single node off the root. Those don't grow the hydra when removed, so you you chop them all off and then win. I found I could see this intuitively if I chopped the top-most head of the most-complex tree for the first several rounds, in most configurations; you'll see whatever tree you're working on get wider, but shorter. It helps to lower the starting number of nodes to 7 or so, as well.
It's even worse than that, depending on how you start, you can easily get 100s of thousands of nodes...

While I'd be happy to take a look, I have to honestly predict that you won't hear anything you haven't heard before, and you are unlikely to change your mind.

Anyone who thinks skill points (or any other character ability) is useless in combat gets an "F" in munchkinry. ;)

It depends on what you mean by "disaster" and "over specified." I will add that the IPCC, a body I accept as reputable, predicts a large range of possible outcomes with probability estimates, some of which I think can be fairly categorized as "disastrous." Global warming is a large potential human misery-causer, but not even close to an existential threat. For certain countries, such as the US, it probably won't be that bad, at least until the second half of this century.

I believe it is true as an environmental engineer engaged in atmospheric modeling. Atmospheric modeling is a field in which the standard scientific method seems to be working well, that is, there is a large benefit to researchers who are right and/or can prove others wrong. This means that there is a lot of effort going into improving models that are already quite accurate, to the limits of the data you input. For example, the 1990 model of climate change does quite well if you give it better data, and at least correctly predicts the temperature trend wit... (read more)

Book Recommendation; Fiction; AI; While this might be the kind of scifi book to merely annoy experts, I found it enjoyable. It surrounds military use of potentially FOOM AI's which are wiped periodically to prevent the foom. Soiler: vg snvyf. It is also part of a series, in which some overlapping events are told from different perspectives, which I also found enjoyable.

No, he is saying by buying condoms you avoid the additional work children require. My understanding.

Yeah, that makes sense and explain the "counterfactual" part, which had eluded me.

Similarly, there was that time US soldiers fired on a camera crew, even laughing at them for being incompetent terrorists when they ran around. Or they just capture and torture them with a poor explanation.

Frankly, I am surprised you have even Facebook friends who would recommend drinking bleach.

He saw it in a Facebook thread, the person who recommended it was probably not his friend but to be honest that surprised me too.The only reason I've even heard before of this is Facebook as well but it was a rant against MMS by an 'Objectivist'.

The linked video is set to private? I can't view it. Not a big deal, the transcript is almost as good.

24, I would also be willing to help. Several people seem concerned that special effort to reach out to teenagers and help them address their problems will interfere with the status-quo style and quality of less wrong. I would encourage being sure that isn't the case, and explaining why. If it would require current users to wade through teenage problems, I would vote not to do that. But I see no reason we can't expand as per John_Maxwell_IV's comment.

I am amused that the "I'm done" comments seem to be random karma generators.

Thanks for suggesting UniversityTutor. Personal Anecdote: In Houston, people will come to me and pay at least $30 an hour for tutoring. I was surprised. I particularly enjoy the light on one student's face when I explained why doing something to both sides of an equation was the only way to get the right answer. I might not have supposed that this was missing if it hadn't appeared on LessWrong.

Yeah, I ended up just selecting to the end of the question: then it stayed selected. I would delete the extra words after copy paste. Obsolete point now probably, but worth looking into for next year.

Which means you might end up with either amount of money, since you don't really know enough about Omega , instead of just the one box winnings. So you should still just one box?


I know I might feel glad because I feel like I have a lot more control over whether I am right or wrong than the relative idiocy of the average person. On the other hand, being a person, I'd probably just be glad either way. The upside of being cynical.

Load More