Lesser2Greater is a Chrome extension that redirects from lesswrong.com to greaterwrong.com. I’d like to use it, but I’m not a Chrome user. I do, however, use bookmarklets, so I made one to replicate Lesser2Greater’s functionality.
confidence: I think I'm on to something (I'm posting this publicly because I'd like it to get passed around for corrections, both nitpicky (typos, thinkos) and important (glaring errors in logic). I need to whip up a better title for it, too. Corrections appreciated.) Prior reading: * Scott Alexander’s All...
> It’s easy to make experimental design mistakes that invalidate your online controlled experiments. At an organisation like Facebook (who kindly supplied the corpus of experiments used in this study), the state of art is to have a pool of experts carefully review all experiments. PlanAlyzer acts a bit like...
Originally posted at https://www.threemonkeymind.com/wgir/mario-kart/. “Rationality techiques helped me to become less bad at Mario Kart” isn’t the most compelling elevator pitch for reading The Sequences, but it illustrates the usefulness of reevaluating the things you think you know every so often, especially when you’re making decisions based on the things...
I was writing a post when I thought “this isn’t very novel. I should mark it as such.” It then occurred to me to make a 1–10 scale to describe how novel a piece is, similar to Gwern's importance tags. However, I’d prefer an objective scale, not a rank scale...
Lesser2Greater is a Chrome extension that redirects from lesswrong.com to greaterwrong.com. I’d like to use it, but I’m not a Chrome user. I do, however, use bookmarklets, so I made one to replicate Lesser2Greater’s functionality.
"You will be OK", he says on the site started by the guy who was quite reasonably confident that nobody will be OK.
I was hoping that this post would be something of a Defense against the Dark Arts post, but it doesn't seem to be:
[Dawkins saying "I do not intend to disparage trans people…"]
This doesn’t work. People see through it. It comes across as either dishonest or oblivious, and both make you look bad. If you want to genuinely engage in mistake theory discourse, do it in spaces where that’s actually the norm—academic seminars, private discussions, carefully-gated intellectual communities. Don’t perform neutrality in conflict arenas while making moves that clearly serve specific interests.
Suppose he actually wants to take the other side down a peg.
It seems to me that the only people who object to him playing power games are postmodernists, who think, by and large, that all communication is power games.
What is there to lose by playing power games with people who think that roughly all communication is power games?
Strong-downvoted for being indistinguishable from unedited ChatGPT output.
(That apparently Claude wrote it doesn't matter.)
cybernetic models
What do you (all) mean by "cybernetic" here?
people who OOP
I'm assuming you're not talking about object-oriented programming, but I can't figure out what this acronym refers to.
I think a bunch of these kinds of things are plots for Seinfeld episodes.
That is an incredibly useful definition for a term I’ve seen floating around here for years — thanks!
…could it be put somewhere moderately prominent, where people can stumble over it?
I’m kind of hoping it could be somewhere prominent in the first page of results on https://www.lesswrong.com/search?query=hufflepuff. I’m looking at https://www.lesswrong.com/sequences/oyZGWX9WkgWzEDt6M and while your comment’s definition makes the page make sense, I wouldn’t be able to independently generate your comment’s definition from “comradery, reliability, trustworthiness, willingness to do physical work, willingness to stick with things for a long time, etc.”.
Is “Hufflepuff” (as a personality type) described anywhere concisely and more or less completely on LW? https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DbdP8hD2AcKcdSsgF/project-hufflepuff-planting-the-flag seems like the closest thing to an explainer, but it seems incomplete. (https://www.greaterwrong.com/w/heroic-responsibility is exactly the sort of explainer that I’d want for Hufflepuff.)
And so, this post seems like a very bad example for some kinds of mind, because heroic responsibility is when you say “it doesn’t matter what role I have”, and so people who are blocked on imagining themselves as a business owner/leader would be put off by this instead of getting it.
Yeah, it’s not particularly heroic if you’re The Guy, even if it means you’re the one putting in 70-hour weeks fixing stuff that crops up to keep the business running because if you don’t fix it, nobody will, and the business will collapse.
Meanwhile, https://www.greaterwrong.com/w/heroic-responsibility — that I got to by clicking on the tag above the post that reads “Heroic Responsibility” — seems significantly clearer about the heroism aspect, and I don’t think having read HPMOR ages ago means it’s all that extra understandable compared to Joe Q. Public.
confidence: I think I'm on to something
(I'm posting this publicly because I'd like it to get passed around for corrections, both nitpicky (typos, thinkos) and important (glaring errors in logic). I need to whip up a better title for it, too. Corrections appreciated.)
Prior reading:
It bothers me when other people use a troll’s truism in a discussion. It probably bothers you, too. A person uses a troll’s truism when he claims something bold and, when his audience rejects his claim, reformulates his claim into something innocuous and asserts that the reformulation is a restatement of the initial, rejected assertion.
Now,
It’s easy to make experimental design mistakes that invalidate your online controlled experiments. At an organisation like Facebook (who kindly supplied the corpus of experiments used in this study), the state of art is to have a pool of experts carefully review all experiments. PlanAlyzer acts a bit like a linter for online experiment designs, where those designs are specified in the PlanOut language.
As well as pointing out any bugs in the experiment design, PlanAlyzer will also output a set of contrasts — comparisons that you can safely make given the design of the experiment. Hopefully the comparison you wanted to make when you set up the experiment is in that set!
[…]
Regular
Originally posted at https://www.threemonkeymind.com/wgir/mario-kart/.
“Rationality techiques helped me to become less bad at Mario Kart” isn’t the most compelling elevator pitch for reading The Sequences, but it illustrates the usefulness of reevaluating the things you think you know every so often, especially when you’re making decisions based on the things you think you know.
Rationality gives you a mental toolkit to help you update your beliefs based on evidence. This is not always easy. Orwell once remarked that to see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle and it’s useful to have mental techniques, habits, and sayings to help you model the world as best as you can.
I recently got
I was writing a post when I thought “this isn’t very novel. I should mark it as such.” It then occurred to me to make a 1–10 scale to describe how novel a piece is, similar to Gwern's importance tags. However, I’d prefer an objective scale, not a rank scale that Resorter generates. If I never write anything super-duper-new, I shouldn’t have any 10s on the novelty scale.
Currently, I have a rather coarse four-point scale with points that aren’t uniformly distributed between their neighbors:
Lesser2Greater is a Chrome extension that redirects from lesswrong.com to greaterwrong.com. I’d like to use it, but I’m not a Chrome user. I do, however, use bookmarklets, so I made one to replicate Lesser2Greater’s functionality.
I can’t think of spending more money than this personally, but that’s merely a failure of imagination and associated skill issues.
If you have higher ambitions — like making humanity an interplanetary species — then you’ll want more. So much more.