Wiki Contributions

Comments

Ppau1mo10

Of course! Thank you

Ppau1mo30

As a fellow member of the regrettably small overlap between rationalists and adepts of ecological psychology, (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Y4hN7SkTwnKPNCPx5/why-don-t-more-people-talk-about-ecological-psychology), I'm looking forward to seeing your next posts!

Ppau5mo00

Those statist AI doomers never miss a chance to bring I, R, and S into everything...

More seriously, thanks for the history lesson!

Ppau1y10

Thanks for your answer! Very interesting

I didn't know about the continuous nature of LNN; I would have thought that you needed different hardware (maybe an analog computer?) to treat continuous values.

Maybe it could work for generative networks for images or music, that seems less discrete than written language.

Ppau1y10

Je suis de Grenoble donc ça fait loin mais sympa de voir des rationalistes en France!

Ppau1y20

As I understand it, ecological psychology is more of a framework for the interpretation of existing results than a theory, but it does make predictions about coaching interventions, and yeah it seems like the results are pretty robust

Here is a compilation of studies comparing approaches favored by ecologically-minded coaches to more traditional training interventions: https://perceptionaction.com/comparative/

Could be biased of course, but it may be a good starting point

Ppau1y30

Indeed, the language analogy is a good metaphor for what I was getting at

To be clear though, I was making the opposite point: that ecological dynamics is a lower-level language and bayesianism is at a higher level Like, everyone talks about "opinions" and "mental models" but those concepts are more abstract and leakier, and the underlying reality is closer to information-control laws

But it might be the reverse, what do I know

Ppau1y10

Sure, in any case we're talking about unconscious "automatic" processes The question is what kind of processes they are

Ppau1y10

Thanks! Yeah, you're probably right about the style, I wanted to have some fun but I'm new at this

Ppau2y10

Not sure is they would qualify as "rationalist" but I’m really fond of the Stronger by Science website/podcast

They’re quite knowledgeable and cautious in their advice, and I find their explanations very clear

If you want to go deeper they have a subscription for a very serious monthly research review, and a diet app that seems very carefully designed

Load More