Jasnah Kholin
198
114
Jasnah Kholin has not written any posts yet.
Jasnah Kholin has not written any posts yet.
did you run it? what did you found out?
the thing this post missing is the connection between the Process Crime and Actual Crime. the child have no reason to use the stepstool, beside to eat the cookies, in the vast majority of situations. is it true about lying to banks, or is in situation when Everyone guilty of some crime and the state get to lawfully punish whoever it want, by some criteria that are not written in the law?
this is empirical question with empirical answer, and when i saw disagreements about Process Crimes and Pedantic Rules in real life, it was of the form of "there are legitimate, non-criminal reasons to break this Process Rule" or "this Pedantic Rule is pretty costly to this set or rule-abiding citizens".
interesting, i came to the opposite conclusion. or, more concretely, i found that there are rules that i can follow 95% of the time, and it's actually better then follow it 100% of the time, and there are rules when i simply can't, and i slip all the way down the slippery slope. and a lot of time i can search for differentiator, or more complicated solution.
simple rules need for coordination, when you have about five words. but i have much wider channel to coordinate with future-me, and i should use it to my advantage.
so my lesson was that having rules that are in the form of "never do X" or "always... (read more)
And once you have a message you actually need to share, you'll actually be able to express it.
that doesn't look like good advice to me. or, rather, to make sense, one should assume, a priori, that the day will come when one will have "a message you actually need to share". this way of thinking proving too much - why shouldn't I read those trip reports, assuming one day i will need this knowledge, instead?
there are a lot of things one can do with one's time, and most people don't come to situations like that. learning to write better because one day i will want to write trip report is bad algorithm... (read more)
there is a high correlation between what voters as a whole want on any single narrow issue, and what the outcome of the black box produces.
I'm way to late to the party, but I'm still reading old posts, and this is evidence that other people may too.
this statement is not true, in the country that I live. there are some narrow issues in which there is large public majority, and the black box produce not-correlated output. and this happen for a long period of time.
For the rest of this comment, I'm going to restrict "fox" to "good-scoring generalist forecaster"
why? this is very much not how I understand it, and I find it hard to even generate hypothesis to how you came to this conclusion. which make the rest of the comment seem irrelevant and missing the point.
foxes are people who go to people that have some big theory, and telling them they are wrong, everyone who try to have one theory is wrong, they should have many theories in their toolbox and use the more appropriate.
basically I understood it as Toolbox-thinking and Law-thinking.
restricting foxes to good-scoring generalist forecaster is even more weird. like... why? bad scoring are not foxes? it's look to me like trying to rig the game.
I opened a tab with this comment as something I want to answer too, when an opportunity arise for that. it was two years now, and the tab remain open. I wrote two post about that in my blog, and clarified my thinking about the issue a lot. and yet, I still believe what I believed then, although hopefully I'm more capable to express this. not sure if that, English is hard. but, it's worth trying.
here is my opinion, in its most simple form: one should not be cooperation bot.
if I have repeated opportunities to pay 1 unit to get someone 10 units, and they have the same option, it's better for... (read more)
small and very belated comment to comment (6): I did, actually believe in things and do things because of the decision theory. I sometimes had the impulse myself, but considered it childish and stupid and basically irrational, as in the past i saw people implement "spite" in really bad way.
then I encountered the decision theory on that, and evidence that people react to incentives more then I thought (I'm not sure if it's a crux - I endorse doing the correct thing even when the relevant people don't react to incentives).
so I changed my mind. I endorse the feeling you describe when it arise, but i still naturally pretty low on... (read more)
One of the best forums I knew was homeschooling place, that was officially anti-vax. it was really bad at true-seeking, but I learned there so much. it turned out there are a lot of things that doesn't get said in places that are no default-collaborative. my models of people and societies much better because I was there. and also I leaved when I couldn't endure the idea that I'm bad and wrong for pointing out obvious falsehoods.
I don't think you can seek true without pointing out at false thing and saying they are false. but also, this way of thinking tend to be blind to all of the things that can exist... (read more)
while i dislike the word naughtiness and its connotations, i don't see the contradiction. as the post state int he start "They delight in breaking rules, but not rules that matter. ". all Decision Theory rules are rules that matter.
this doesn't answer the question of what rules to break and what not. but you cant be Lawful by following all laws in our way-to bureaucratic society.
my mother think that going outside while wearing pajamas is unthinkable. it can probably be described as naughty. it's also totally harmless.
but also, now that i thought about you comment it become clear that i actually don't know what is even the meaning of "Be Naughty".
i think this is the kind of post that would benefit greatly from three examples at least.