Poll for next article
post by Mass_Driver · 2011-06-24T03:23:30.575Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 28 commentsContents
28 comments
Hi everyone,
I am planning to write one or more full-length articles for the main page soon, and I thought I'd take an informal poll to see what people would find most useful.
Possible articles include:
- A three-part series on how to calibrate (how to know how much you know), and how to apply your newfound powers of calibration to make successful plans under extreme uncertainty
- A three-part series on the frontiers of reductionism (the theory that all interesting phenomena can be fully explained in terms of ordinary physics), with arguments suggesting that consciousness, free will, and/or narrative truths might be both interesting and irreducible.
- A solo article listing procedural heuristics which suggest that we should be skeptical of claims about cryonics and Friendly AI.
- A solo article examining ways that liberal Jewish memes have personally increased and decreased my rationality, and exploring possible strategies for designing memes or rituals that would achieve the benefits without the costs.
- A four-part series providing a brief overview of the American legal system (contracts, torts, criminal law, administrative law) along with analysis of the extent to which various features of the system are likely to achieve any of the system's apparent goals.
- A solo article proposing various strategies for using board games to achieve social change, and seeking feedback on how to improve these strategies as well as on which strategies are most likely to succeed.
28 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by gjm · 2011-06-24T09:33:03.473Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
They all sound potentially interesting. Most to least interesting: 4, 1, 3, 2, 6, 5. Caveats: unconvinced that 1 (calibration) really needs a 3-parter; concerned that 2 (frontiers of reductionism) might turn out to be a standard-issue anti-"scientism" whinge (perhaps this wouldn't be a concern if I went back and read more of what you've written); 5 (US legal system) is at the bottom mostly because four articles on that subject seems like too much for something that's rather tangential here; 3 (skepticism about FAI and cryonics) seems like it might want a little generalizing, since heuristics that apply to both FAI and cryonics probably apply to a bunch of other things too.
comment by Normal_Anomaly · 2011-06-24T14:57:24.556Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In descending order of interest to me: 3,2,1,6,4,5. I'm especially interested in 3 because I'm currently uncertain about whether the Singularity will happen and looking for arguments either way, and in 2 because I'm fairly confident you're wrong about consciousness being irreducible (and thus have the potential to be very surprised by the post). If your arguments for the implausibility of cryonics and/or Singularitarianism involve your assertion that some aspect of the mind is irreducible, definitely post your irreducibility arguments first.
comment by JoshuaZ · 2011-06-24T12:43:33.483Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Well, these all seem interesting. The first sound the most interesting to a general audience but may run into issues in that we've had somewhat similar stuff. The procedural heuristics may also be worth reading.
Also, regarding option 4- although I don't think I'd find it to be that interesting, empirically the recent posts about people learning lessons from LDS practices were well-received, so that one might interest a fair bit of the community.
comment by lukstafi · 2011-06-24T10:31:39.726Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I would like a philosophy (conceptual analysis) post about the reductionism spectrum: full reductionism, non-eliminativist reductionism, non-reductionist naturalism; but perhaps lukeprog would be better at writing it? Of your list, I vote for #3 (i.e. skepticism arguments).
comment by Jonathan_Graehl · 2011-06-24T17:10:45.985Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
6, 4, 5, 3 descending interest. I'm doubtful that 1 or 2 will cover any new ground for me; if I'm wrong, then I'd move 1 to the top.
comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2011-06-24T08:59:14.031Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
4, 5 and 6.
comment by cousin_it · 2011-06-24T07:58:03.291Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
2 and 3 sound interesting. Please consider writing a single post instead of a sequence.
Replies from: prase↑ comment by prase · 2011-06-24T11:49:38.760Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Please consider writing a single post instead of a sequence.
Posts have been criticised for containing too much tangentially related thoughts and splitting them in several subposts is often suggested. Your advice can easily become counter-productive without knowing what the author intents to cover.
comment by jsalvatier · 2011-06-24T04:57:18.306Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I vote for 2 or 3
comment by MinibearRex · 2011-06-26T16:10:19.997Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The sequence on calibration sounds the most interesting to me.
comment by Oscar_Cunningham · 2011-06-24T20:53:05.515Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
4 and 5
comment by wedrifid · 2011-06-24T17:59:14.786Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
My preferences are 6, 5, 1, 3, 4; ranked in order and by the criteria of "definitely not being 2".
Replies from: Normal_Anomaly↑ comment by Normal_Anomaly · 2011-06-24T18:54:05.976Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'd be willing to bet even odds that you don't want 2 for the same reason I do want it--it's probably wrong. Care to tell me if I'm right? (No actual money involved here.)
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-06-24T20:27:10.753Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yes, probably wrong, probably nothing that hasn't already been said multiple times and likely to prompt confused people to say many things with unwarranted confidence in the resulting discussion.
Replies from: Normal_Anomaly↑ comment by Normal_Anomaly · 2011-06-24T20:40:47.053Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm hoping that he's wrong in an interesting, post-reading-the-Sequences way. Then again, I thought that when a Mormon came on and said "ask me anything," but it turned out to be the same old boring kind of wrong. I may need to update more on that experience.