Hazard

Worried that I might already be a post-rationalist. I'm very interested in minimizing miscommunication, and helping people through the uncanny valley of rationality. Feel free to pm me about either of those things.

Hazard's Comments

TurnTrout's shortform feed

Yay learning all the things! Your reviews are fun, also completely understandable putting energy elsewhere. Your energy for more learning is very useful for periodically bouncing myself into more learning.

TurnTrout's shortform feed

Have you been continuing your self-study schemes into realms beyond math stuff? If so I'm interested in both the motivation and how it's going! I remember having little interest in other non-physics science growing up, but that was also before I got good at learning things and my enjoyment was based on how well it was presented.

[Review] Meta-Honesty (Ben Pace, Dec 2019)

I also anticipate I'll write my own review/commentary on the OP, so mayhaps I can expand more on my thoughts and you can have more to respond to.

ToL: Foundations
In other words, does I(w) equal {A∈I:w∈A}?

This one!

[Review] Meta-Honesty (Ben Pace, Dec 2019)

I think it's very important to see that there are at least two different ideas/norms around honesty being proposed. There's:

[Living out meta-honesty in real life means] stopping and asking yourself "Would I be willing to publicly defend this as a situation in which unusually honest people should lie, if somebody posed it as a hypothetical?"

Which is a suggestion for your standards of object level honesty, and separately there is:

And so he simply suggests that on top of this, you should be absolutely honest about where you'll likely be honest and dishonest.

The idea that you should be meta-honest. You can think about them completely separately, and at the beginning I found lumping them together to make it harder for me to get why the meta-honesty part mattered.

I could be 100% meta honest (when the code of meta-honesty is invoked), and still have an object level honesty policy that you/EY might consider way too loose.

The Intelligent Social Web
In my opinion, the biggest shift in the study of rationality since the Sequences were published were a change in focus from "bad math" biases (anchoring, availability, base rate neglect etc.) to socially-driven biases.

Funny enough, when I did a reread through the sequence, I saw a huge number of little ways EY was pointing to various socially driven biases, which I'd missed the first time around. I think it might have been a framing thing, where because it didn't feel like those bits were the main point of the essays, I smashed them all into "Don't be dumb/conformist" (a previous notion I could round off to).

Also great review.

ToL: Methods and Success

1) noting that all the research is Kevin Kelly's, I'm just taking his class 2) I agree that it seems underexplored and interesting.

meta: agreed. I'm putting all the posts up now for logistical reasons related to the class.

Books on the zeitgeist of science during Lord Kelvin's time.

Yikes, I fell for it. To your knowledge is there any period in the history of physics were prominent scholars seemed to think that most of the work was done?

Books on the zeitgeist of science during Lord Kelvin's time.

My understanding is that at least around Kelvins time, there was a general attitude of "we've almost figured out all the stuff". I'm very curious about what it looks like to have many scientists thinking that. My history is weak enough that I don't know how widespread that sentiment was, nor how long it was around. I only picked Kelvin as a marker of that.

The Actionable Version of "Keep Your Identity Small"

Lol, this is the post I wanted to write but better. Thanks Kaj! To anyone who ended up here, go read Ruby's post.

Load More