Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions


I've read the article a few times, but found myself getting confused. After some thinking, I think I've narrowed it down to working better with examples rather than general universals. The above seems like good material, but is there any way I could convince anyone to give an example or two, maybe walk through the process step by step?

Essentially what I was trying to say, only put more succinctly and better than I did. Thanks. ^_^

In saying this, I am in no way saying that the average teenager is stupid, or lacks the cognitive abilities to full read and appreciate Less Wrong.

However, the readability of the Core Sequences isn't at a low reading level. To make them more teen-friendly, we may wish to consider how to make them more accessible. This may mean making them shorter, summarizing the main ideas more frequently, and using applicable real-life examples more.

I'd be interested in knowing what kind of help we're looking for to make this happen. I'd be willing to help with the writing of the new articles if I knew which were most wanted, and had a few people (and some teens) to bounce them off of when completed.

Completed. Huzzah! I feel like a participating member of the community.

I think it's mostly the shape of that curve. Why does it hit 80% gain at only 20% effort? Is that the same across many different tasks?

I'm a writer (novelist), and it's a common statement in writing circles (the ones I'm in, at least) that every writer has a million words of crap to get out. That's a rough estimate, of course, and I've always taken it to show that you have to work hard at your craft to improve. At an average of 1k words/hour, that's a good thousand hours of nothing but writing to get out.

Is that 20% effort? 50% 80% How does one chart or measure that?

But, if it's a newbie and you knew that changing it from a -3 to a -4 would end the discussion, wouldn't you just not down vote it, and explain your problem or correction?

This new change seems to me to be a way for someone to end a conversation, though they had to have 3 other people help them get it there. Is that an intentional change we want to make?

I think the biggest problem I initially have with accepting Silver's graph is the lack of evidence he gives for that arch. Putting that shape on a graph has quite a few ramifications.

Do you feel that the evidence he gave supported that shape?

I'm not sure that randomness from evolution and enculturation should be treated differently from random factors in the intuition-squaring process. It's randomness all the way through either way, right?

I think this statement is the fulcrum of my disagreement with your argument. You assert that "it's randomness all the way through either way". I disagree; it's not randomness all the way, not at all.

Evolution's mutations and changes are random; evolutions adaptions are not random - they happen in response to the outside world. Furthermore, the mutations and changes that survive aren't random either: they all meet the same criteria, that they didn't hamper survival.

I believe, then, that developing an internally consistent moral framework can be aided by recognizing the forces that have shaped our intuitions, and deciding whether the direction those forces are taking us is a worthy destination. We don't have to be blind and dumb slaves to Evolution any more. Not really.

It's certainly related. Cached Thoughts have always suggested repeating a meme, to me, which is different than supplying a ready-made answer. For example: Cached Thoughts rely on the conclusion coming from outside of your mind, and merely accepted as truth without any analysis. Canned Answers can be your own conclusions from earlier, thoughtlessly applied to a situation they might not be relevant to, or just used as an escape so new thought doesn't have to be done.

But yeah, quite similar. Good to know I originally came up with someone found here. Go ego boost. ^_^

When I did discussion groups like these, one useful term I introduced was a "canned answer". This is any answer that can be supplied without any original thought or analysis, as if they just went into the cellar of their mind and pulled out a can. Introducing this term as a negative thing and banning "canned answers" puts focus on taking a moment to think before speaking. It got to the point where I was able to just look at someone and twist my hand - they'd instantly stop and think. The group also became self-policing and started asking, "that seemed a little fast; do you think it was canned?" to check themselves.

It's a term I found useful. I hope your group continues to go well!

Load More