Thread for making 2019 Review accountability commitments

I failed to meet all my commitments. 

Operationalize three forecasting questions

Smashed this one and created 20+ questions. 

Run one MTurk/Positly survey

I have a beginning draft of a survey for the Secret of Our Success. I hoped I could finish it up yesterday, but instead I had work on shipping the LessWrong Books. Will see if I can get it out later this week. 

Have at least one 2h conversation about a particular post, and write up a review after, almost regardless of how I feel the conversation went

Didn't happen and didn't really come close. 


My main post-mortem is that I had multiple calendar reminders about the commitment, but for all of them I postponed them into the future. Until it was the last weekend and I was out of time. I should've spent more meta-cognition during some of them, thinking about how much time I would need to complete the tasks on time. 

Thread for making 2019 Review accountability commitments

Nice job. 

Reviews seem to me to have a lower karma on average than either posts, or comments on currently popular posts. 

Unconscious Economics

Author here: I think this post could use a bunch of improvements. It spends a bunch of time on tangential things (e.g. the discussion of Inadequacy and why this doesn't come through in textbooks, spending a while initially setting up a view to then tear down). 

But really what would be nice is to have it do a much better job at delivering the core insight. This is currently just done in two bullets + one exercise for the reader. 

Even more important would be to include JenniferRM's comment which adds a core mechanism (something like "cultural learning").

Overall, though, I still stand by the importance of the underlying concept; and think it's a crucial part of the toolkit required to apply economic thinking in practice.   

Being the (Pareto) Best in the World

Yeah I thought about that. I'm curious whether one could operationalise the field-picking into an interesting poll question.

Two explanations for variation in human abilities

Formulations are basically just lifted from the post verbatim, so the response might be some evidence that it would be good to rework the post a bit before people vote on it. 

I thought a bit about how to turn Katja's core claim into a poll question, but didn't come up with any great ideas. Suggestions welcome. 

As for whether the claims are true or not --

The "broken parts" argument is one counter-argument. 

But another is that it matters a lot what learning algorithm you use. Someone doing deliberate practice (in a field where that's possible) will vastly outperform someone who just does "guessing and checking", or who Goodharts very hard on short-term metrics. 

Maybe you'd class that under "background knowledge"? Or maybe the claim is that, modulo broken parts, motivation, and background knowledge, different people can meta-learn the same effective learning strategies? 

Credence polls for 26 claims from the 2019 Review

Ey, awesome! I've updated the post to include them. 

Babble Thread

Reading the OP quickly, I wasn't entirely sure what I was supposed to babble about... "100 ways to light a candle" is easier than "...anything" :) 

Consider giving some prompts that people could default to, unless they have something else in mind already?

Load More