Open thread, Nov. 21 - Nov. 27 - 2016

post by MrMind · 2016-11-21T07:47:53.213Z · score: 1 (2 votes) · LW · GW · Legacy · 72 comments

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, then it goes here.


Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top level comments on this article" and "

72 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Anders_H · 2016-11-22T20:58:25.516Z · score: 7 (7 votes) · LW · GW

The one-year embargo on my doctoral thesis has been lifted, it is now available at https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/23205172/HUITFELDT-DISSERTATION-2015.pdf?sequence=1 . To the best of my knowledge, this is the first thesis to include a Litany of Tarski in the introduction.

comment by scarcegreengrass · 2016-11-25T17:06:42.712Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · LW · GW

This is not news but i would use this site a lot more if there was a little less downvoting. Is the bottleneck on this computer programmers or coordinators?

comment by gjm · 2016-11-25T19:22:32.688Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · LW · GW

More the former. In particular, there is one user who has been banned repeatedly, has many sockpuppets, and engages in mass-downvoting of people who have in the past expressed opinions contrary to his political position. (It is not clear that he now participates in any way other than by downvoting people he disapproves of, and it's possible that he would rather burn LW to the ground if he could.) Given better tools it might be easy to identify all his sockpuppets, terminate them with extreme prejudice, and stop him coming back; at present, those tools aren't in place. The LW moderators don't have the sort of direct access to the data that would make investigation easy without actually making code changes to the site, and are (I think) not programmer types anyway.

So what needs to happen is for people who have software expertise (but no mod power) to develop what they hope will be suitable tools, without any sort of access to the actual server or data (but there is a procedure, only a few years out of date, for making a sort of LW sandbox on your own computer); for them to provide these to the people who run the site; for the tools to get deployed; for the mods to try to use them to do their job; and for whatever iteration on this process is needed to happen.

(And of course this requires the people with expertise but no power to be sufficiently motivated to do their bit, without any actual way of knowing that the other people involved will actually be willing and able to turn their work into something usable.)

comment by Dagon · 2016-11-26T16:30:25.199Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · LW · GW

(And of course this requires the people with expertise but no power to be sufficiently motivated to do their bit, without any actual way of knowing that the other people involved will actually be willing and able to turn their work into something usable.)

This makes it sound like coordination is at least as much a problem as expertise. Do the mods have any sort of feature list or request for things they WANT to use to solve the problem?

comment by gjm · 2016-11-29T17:17:23.437Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Yup. The person to talk to would be Elo.

comment by MrMind · 2016-11-24T15:21:24.178Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

The hero's journey

Someone common lives in harmony with a society oppressed by some evil. S/he sets for a journey which grants him/her the power to overturn the evil. S/he usually reintegrates into society.

The anti-hero's journey

Someone common lives in disharmony with a society oppressed by some evil. S/he sets for a journey which grants him/her the power to overturn the evil. S/he usually fails to do so.

The Chinese hero's journey

Someone powerful lives in disharmony with a society oppressed by some evil. After defeating the evil s/he sets for a journey which grants him/her the humility / balance to live in harmony with society. S/he usually reintegrates into society.

The politician's journey

Someone common lives in harmony with a society plagued by some coordination problem. S/he sets for a journey which grants him/her the influence to make everyone agree. S/he usually reintegrates into society.

The Chinese anti-hero's, anti-politician's, Chinese politician's and Chinese anti-politician's journeys are left as an exercise to the reader.

comment by Gunnar_Zarncke · 2016-11-25T21:33:25.362Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

My guess:

The Chinese anti-hero's journey

Someone powerful lives in harmony with a society oppressed by some evil. After failing to defeat the evil s/he sets for a journey which grants him/her the humility / balance to live in harmony with society. S/he usually fails at that to.

comment by MrMind · 2016-11-28T07:38:48.553Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Wonderful! :-)

comment by Daniel_Burfoot · 2016-11-22T22:26:22.069Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Consider the following two theories about why deep learning is currently the dominant paradigm of AI research:

  1. Deep learning methods are actually superior to other approaches in fundamental ways. Possibly this is because they are closer to the real structure of human brains. Perhaps it is because they can be used to build complex models, and complex models are necessary to describe a complex world. Deep learning is the result of an exploratory process in AI, which after long deliberation picked machine learning as the right family of methods, and deep learning as the right species within that family.

  2. Deep learning is not superior to other approaches in any fundamental way. Instead, the apparent spectacular success of deep learning comes from the fact that the colloquial version of Moore's Law (computer speeds double every 18 months) broke down about 10 years ago. Rapidly increasing computational power is now only available if one uses the GPU, and DL neural network algorithms are well-suited to run on the GPU. Therefore, of all the possible approaches to AI, DL is the only approach that can take advantage of increases in computer speeds over the last 10-15 years.

Which theory is more plausible? Different opinions on this question could lead to very different predictions for AI timelines. Theory #1 is "optimistic", in the sense that it implies the AI field has made a lot of strong progress, by finding the specific family of techniques that are going to become really powerful. Theory #2 is "pessimistic", in the sense that it means the field misattributed the apparent success of DL, and has therefore been led astray.

comment by MrMind · 2016-11-23T08:08:45.149Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I see 2 as a special case of 1. No computational model is inherently superior to another, it is just better for the data / computational power / necessities we have at hand.

comment by NatashaRostova · 2016-11-24T23:20:19.667Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I am not a ML Research Scientist -- but have studied and used it, and find it very interesting.

As far as I understand, deep learning is able to discover and fit any nonlinear dynamics in a set of data, which then of course has to be trained/regularized/cross-validated to prune away over-fitting. If we accept the view that reality is just a huge set of nonlinear equations and information, and NN/DL can discover these at any level of granularity, then it is a reasonable prediction that they are well posed to be the best.

Also I'm not confident in this next point, but would love some additional feedback. Read this part with skepticism: As I understand effective DL works so well because it combines filtering and tractability within the model structure, and with variation on layering/neurons/optimization techniques, it opens up a greater set of potential models than many other model classes. This makes the fact that it works so well with GPU not a lucky accident, but rather an intrinsic feature of the mathematical structure of the model. Perhaps that's why we evolved to use NN type structure in our brain -- due to its tractability and parallel information processing abilities?

To use an example from my own research, in Financial Econometric asset pricing we often use this tool called a Kalman Filter to filter out states of the world from sets of stochastic PDEs. Optimizing those models, when they have more than ~10 parameters, is such a hassle. It requires lots of optimization black-magic, which is a quasi-scientific method where over months you run different optimization algorithms on the whole model, then single parameters, then the whole model, and if some parameter looks 'weird' you manually change it to what you 'think' it should be.

Basically a neural network could learn the dynamics here (without revealing them to us), and provide a potentially equal forecast (haven't tested this). It could also do this much faster than our optimization method (I think). The forecast would be less useful to a human analyst, because without the model dynamics made explicit, it is much harder to run simulations and study specific parameters. But it's within the realm of reason to predict that a computer, were it self aware, would be able to understand the way the parameters work in the NN/DL model itself.

For this reason I think the natural structure of the model makes it somewhat true that it is #2, but that this makes it a special case of #1 (as MrMind pointed out before me).

Again, I'm not a ML Research Scientist -- so if I've totally messed something up I'd love to know what and why.

comment by Daniel_Burfoot · 2016-11-26T19:04:48.324Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I can't comment usefully on everything you wrote, so I'll just say a couple of things.

First, don't be too credulous: the field of AI has been surrounded and plagued by hype since its inception, the current era isn't much different. Researchers have every incentive to encourage the hype.

Second, it's interesting that you bring up the Kalman Filter, because it makes a nice contrast to DNNs. The Kalman filter is actually kind of nice aesthetically, it has a pleasing mathematical elegance to it. People who use the KF know more or less the limits of its applicability. When I'm reading DNN papers, I feel like the whole field has given up on the notion of aesthetics and wholeheartedly embraced architecture hacking as a methodology.

Third, I think you'll find that the DNNs are much much harder to use than you imagine or expect. The problem is that all DNN research relies on architecture hacking: write down a network, train it up, look at the result, then tweak the architecture and repeat. There is very little, embarrassingly little theory behind it all. The phrase "we have found" is prominent in DNN papers, meaning "we tweaked the network a bunch of times in various ways and found that this trick worked the best." Furthermore, each cycle of code/test/tweak takes a really long time since DNN training, almost by definition, is very time-consuming.

comment by NatashaRostova · 2016-11-27T03:29:06.473Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

To address your third point first, I'm sure you are right. I have only played around with simple NNs, and shouldn't have spoken freely on how it would be easy to estimate a more complex one, when I don't know much about it.

As a follow up question to your second point: The Kalman filter is a very aesthetically pleasing model, I agree. Something I wonder, but have no idea on, is whether there are mathematical concepts similar to the Kalman filter (in terms of aesthetics and usefulness) that are entirely outside of the understanding of the human brain. So, hypothetically, if we engineered humans with IQ 200+ (or whatever), they would uncover things like the Kalman Filter that normal humans couldn't grasp.

If that's true, does it stand to reason that we could still use those models with a sufficiently well optimized/built DNN? We would just never understand what's going on inside the network?

I often think of self-driving cars as learning the dynamic interactions of a set of nonlinear equations that are beyond the scope of a human to ever derive.

I'll note I realize some of my questions might be too vague or pseudo-philosophical to be answered.

PS: I did a little internet sleuthing and have read the first ~12 pages of your book so far, which is very interesting and similar to how I think of the world (yours is much more well developed). I am also incredibly interested in empirical philosci and read/write/think about it a ton.

comment by moridinamael · 2016-11-21T15:57:35.314Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Have you heard of Gobekli Tepe?

Through the radiocarbon method, the end of Layer III can be fixed at about 9000 BCE (see above) but it is believed that the elevated location may have functioned as a spiritual center by 11,000 BCE or even earlier, essentially at the very end of the Pleistocene.

...

The surviving structures, then, not only predate pottery, metallurgy, and the invention of writing or the wheel, they were built before the so-called Neolithic Revolution, i.e., the beginning of agriculture and animal husbandry around 9000 BCE. But the construction of Göbekli Tepe implies organization of an advanced order not hitherto associated with Paleolithic, PPNA, or PPNB societies. Archaeologists estimate that up to 500 persons were required to extract the heavy pillars from local quarries and move them 100–500 meters (330–1,640 ft) to the site. The pillars weigh 10–20 metric tons (10–20 long tons; 11–22 short tons), with one still in the quarry weighing 50 tons.

...

At present Göbekli Tepe raises more questions for archaeology and prehistory than it answers. It remains unknown how a force large enough to construct, augment, and maintain such a substantial complex was mobilized and compensated or fed in the conditions of pre-sedentary society.

I admit I am not a student of history or anthropology, but finding Gobekli Tepe seems like discovering a working grandfather clock in orbit around Saturn. It seems like it should be absolutely devastating to any narrative of history that doesn't involve large, organized civilizations in, at the latest, 9,000 BC.

Which the prevailing interpretation does not permit. It appears that rather than throwing all the old interpretations out the window, mainstream archaeological establishment has decided that those 20 ton stones were being hewn, transported and placed by ... hunter-gatherers. Teams of 500 hunter-gatherers, I guess?

I'm going to come clean and admit that I've been listening to the Joe Rogan podcast, and specifically to his guests who subscribe to the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis. The idea here is that humanity had started forming true civilizations before 10,000 BC, and a comet impact or airburst over one of the ice sheets caused a huge fireball and flood that led to mass extinctions and the annihilation of civilization. There seems to be a decent case for this theory, but as an uneducated bystander, I can't tell from the outside if I'm looking at crackpots who are cherry-picking evidence, or trailblazing iconoclasts who are at the forefront of the reinvention of a new paradigm.

I admit that I Want To Believe, and that makes it hard to reason objectively, particularly in what may be an epistemically hostile environment where charlatans (or academic holdouts) may or may not be trying to manipulate what evidence makes it to the layman investigator.

Overall, this seems like an interesting field test for rationalist skills.

comment by FourFire · 2016-11-22T14:41:00.391Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Archaeologists estimate that up to 500 persons were required to extract the heavy pillars from local quarries and move them

I wouldn't take this claim for granted, perhaps I can contact one of these archaeologists, to check how they reached their estimate?

There's not many pixels in this source but it explains a concept for low manpower block moving using simple tools probably available to pre-farming civilizations.

comment by Lumifer · 2016-11-21T16:14:23.009Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

It seems like it should be absolutely devastating to any narrative of history that doesn't involve large, organized civilizations in, at the latest, 9,000 BC.

500 people is not a "large, organized" civilization. The town of Jericho is supposed to have had a population of 2-3,000 people around the same time. Calling it a "civilization" is aIso debatable. I really don't see anything earth-shaking about this.

There seems to be a decent case for this theory

That's evidence for the theory that the Younger Dryas were caused by an extraterrestrial impact, not for the theory of "true civilizations before 10,000 BC".

comment by Vaniver · 2016-11-21T16:49:20.927Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

500 people is not a "large, organized" civilization. The town of Jericho is supposed to have had a population of 2-3,000 people around the same time. Calling it a "civilization" is aIso debatable. I really don't see anything earth-shaking about this.

I feel like you're missing what makes this case interesting, that our best evidence makes it look like this happened before agriculture and animal husbandry, not after. 500 people is a lot of people to have in one place with only hunting and gathering.

Jericho came about three thousand years after Gobekli Tepe, if one takes the dating estimates at face value.

comment by Lumifer · 2016-11-21T16:59:46.948Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

500 people is a lot of people to have in one place with only hunting and gathering.

Not if they gather for a few weeks or so, and then disperse.

comment by moridinamael · 2016-11-21T17:03:03.840Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

It is worth noting that even mainstream archaeologists who aren't on board with the idea of mysterious ancient civilizations and impact extinctions think Gobekli Tepe is weird and not easily explicable. They assert that it would build by hunter-gatherers despite the fact that this contradicts their usual model of what hunter-gatherers should be able to accomplish.

comment by Lumifer · 2016-11-21T17:20:34.470Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Yeah, but the thing is, I don't see anything terribly important about facts which "contradict their usual model of what hunter-gatherers should be able to accomplish" since I think their usual model should come with a large warning label "EPISTEMIC STATUS: UNCERTAIN". If you have a collection of guesses based on sparse data, you should be prepared to revise these guesses when new data comes in.

It's a big deal if you staked your academic career on one of those guesses; otherwise, not so much.

comment by bogus · 2016-11-22T16:53:10.027Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

500 people is not a "large, organized" civilization. The town of Jericho is supposed to have had a population of 2-3,000 people around the same time.

True, but these are arguably a lot more like "large, organized civilizations" than "isolated bands of foragers". What this suggests is that complex social organization may have been a fairly gradual development occurring over thousands of years, as opposed to a sudden shift resulting from the adoption of agriculture or animal herding. But this is a rather small and local "tweak" on the 'prevailing interpretation'.

comment by Lumifer · 2016-11-22T17:35:18.132Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

these are arguably a lot more like "large, organized civilizations" than "isolated bands of foragers"

It's the "isolated" word that's carrying most of the weight here and I don't see any reason to consider the hunter-gatherer tribes of that age isolated.

Now, contemporary stone-age tribes are all very isolated, but that is clearly a selection effect. If you're a forager tribe 10 kya, why wouldn't you interact (sometimes cooperate, sometimes fight) with other similar tribes around you?

comment by moridinamael · 2016-11-21T16:28:33.881Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I'm not really in a position to contradict anybody on this topic, but I can't seem to Google up any info about Jerico that supports that claim, unless you expand your window of "around that time" by a couple of thousand years. I am prepared to be wrong about this, and will keep looking. Regardless, I am still having a hard time imagining a supposedly pre-writing, pre-pottery, literally stone age civilization building something like Gobekli Tepe. In an admittedly naive framing, if you just look at Gobekli Tepe, it seems more extensive and sophisticated than anything we see for another 4000 years or so, when the Sumerians start building their cities.

As for the relevance of the link I posted, you're right, I debated whether to include the link at all. I decided to include it because it does constitute evidence for a significant, environment-shifting celestial event occurring within that window of time.

comment by Lumifer · 2016-11-21T16:36:28.370Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Wikipedia says so, but doesn't provide a supporting reference.

With respect to Gobeliki Tepe, keep in mind that it was not a town, that is, not where people lived. The best guess is that it was some sort of a spiritual/religious/temple kind of place.

But in any case, haven't we've been doing "How could those savages have built THAT?!??" since XIX century England and Stonehenge..?

comment by knb · 2016-11-22T04:32:53.146Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

The idea here is that humanity had started forming true civilizations before 10,000 BC, and a comet impact or airburst over one of the ice sheets caused a huge fireball and flood that led to mass extinctions and the annihilation of civilization

There's no mystery about what caused the quaternary mass extinction--humans reached the Americas and wiped out the ecologically naive megafauna.

comment by Vaniver · 2016-11-21T16:44:07.588Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Have you heard of Gobekli Tepe?

If I remember correctly, it showed up in Sapiens. One suspicion is that a bunch of tribes used it as their periodic meeting ground, and that it led to the invention of agriculture in the region because of the frequent human visitation.

This seems plausible to me, especially if it's constructed bit by bit over many years. (How they would do the quarrying in the first place seems weirdest in my model.)

comment by Lumifer · 2016-11-21T16:54:29.976Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

How they would do the quarrying

I think it's just a simple case of "Flint hard, limestone soft, scratch the limestone with the flint point, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat..."

I wonder at which point the stone-cutting tools stopped being stone themselves.. Bronze is probably too soft and even early iron might have been too soft and too expensive to use for stone-cutting.

comment by MrMind · 2016-11-21T11:25:29.069Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

A little bit of a wild idea: what if the concept of a single unified identity is a social construct?

I'm reading "RESTful web API", O'Reilly's book about the REST protocol, which contains this sentence: "Just as one person may be addressed by different names in different contexts", then gives as example a friendly surname, a Twitter handle and a formal salutation. Reading that sparked an association: back when there were no social media, and even further away in time when there was no Internet at all, we all had one name: our complete name, given to us by our parents / family.
But then context started to multiply, and so did names: email addresses, chat nicknames, social media handles, etc.

But what if it's the reverse? What if we have only one name because technology was not advanced enough to presents us with different contexts? What if different handles reflects a true disposition of our mind, that has remain hidden because technology wasn't sufficiently advanced?

This would tie neatly with the presence of conflicting beliefs and behaviours (beliefs and aliefs), and the problem of anthropic identities.

comment by Lumifer · 2016-11-21T15:53:16.661Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

back when there were no social media, and even further away in time when there was no Internet at all, we all had one name: our complete name, given to us by our parents / family.

That is incorrect -- there were nicknames, various nom de guerre/plume/..., etc. Besides, most societies have a variety of ways to address an individual depending on the formality of the occasion and the relative status of the speaker: compare "Hey Lizzy" to "Your Majesty" :-D

comment by FourFire · 2016-11-22T14:29:05.003Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

That might be true, but the fact remains that one person is still completely dependent on and consequently bound to one neural substrate, and the support system for said neural substrate, which permits us (for now) to tie a person's personality to their distinct 'body'.

This remains true even in the spectrum of cases when multiple personalities or possibility even people (appear to) inhabit or share the same neural substrate.

If the substrate is disrupted, the indivdual(s) are destroyed.

This will not always be the case, once technology progresses to such an extent that synthetic and digital persons living in distributed neural substrates become first possible at all and then commonplace in society, the the above statement will be false and a society wide identity crisis will emerge for those not born into the new status quo.

We biological humans, with our antiquated instincts for people in single bodies will be old & regressive compared to the zeitgeist of society.

comment by ChristianKl · 2016-11-22T10:58:22.012Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

As Lumfier says naming is often more complicated than that. Scientists who published in Latin for example often didn't simply write their name as they get called in their native language on their manuscript but Latinized it.

People who move to Spain often adopt the Spanish naming convention where the last name is inherited from both mother and father.

I remember (I think from Code Complete) that the assumption that everybody has a name is also false.

comment by ChristianKl · 2016-11-27T22:12:42.967Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Philip Tetlock speaks strongly of the virtues of foxes. Is there a person in the decision science field who defends being a hedgehog with good arguments?

comment by Douglas_Knight · 2016-11-28T19:50:12.318Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Does Tetlock make good arguments? Doesn't he just say that they have a small empirical advantage? An empirical advantage means that he doesn't know what the virtues actually are. Though maybe a small mean advantage corresponds to a large difference at the tails, and all superpredictors are foxes.

Tetlock himself praises hedgehogs: he says that they are necessary for asking good questions. I don't he provides any evidence for this and I'm a little worried that it's just bullshit for the purpose of being inclusive.

There is a long history of decision science praising models and condemning humans who second-guess the models. Is this praise of hedgehogs? They certainly don't use the word "hedgehog" — that's Tetlock's brand. Or does a precise model not count, only verbal models?

When Tetlock talks about foxes and hedgehogs, he sounds to me like a hedgehog, insisting that every new result has vindicated his verbal model that I can't pin down.

comment by ChristianKl · 2016-11-29T00:23:57.607Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Tetlock has more than just verbal models. "Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?" has a technical appendix.

comment by Douglas_Knight · 2016-11-29T00:40:04.675Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

The technical appendix is technical on the matter of scoring, not on the fox-hedgehog distinction. He has a precise test for the fox/hedgehog distinction. But he claims that it means a lot more than a short list of vague questions. In the technical appendix he scores people in many different ways and he claims that these are reasonable things to expect of foxes and hedgehogs, but it's all post hoc. There's no evidence that he ever had a theory of foxes and hedgehogs.

comment by mortal · 2016-11-26T15:23:23.971Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

How do I remove the effect of cognitive biases on my decision making? My current idea is to - one, train myself to recognize the points when biases may affect me; two, when making an important decision with a high cost or influence on my future, make the decision the 'academic' way.

Is this optimal? Do you have any better solutions?

Also, which book is better to use as a starting point - 'Judgement in Managerial decision Making', or 'Judgement under Uncertainty'? Is 'Thinking Fast and Slow' worth spending time on compared to actively practicing the skill of recognizing biases that influenced your thinking during the day?

Thank you.

comment by ingive · 2016-11-23T17:44:47.278Z · score: -1 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Spinozism Is Back

Einstein, Sagan for example, was Spinozists.

“I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind... to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein (1929)”― Albert Einstein"

Neurospinozism.

Science Finds God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuqvI49IEwU

comment by ingive · 2016-11-22T22:55:53.873Z · score: -2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Science Finds God 23:05

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuqvI49IEwU https://www.asimpleclick.org/

A type of "self-help" similar to CBT or so forth, but of course, without any double-blind trial, or placebo-controlled, if it's possible. But from my point of view, worth investigation, especially in a clinical setting.

What do you think, watching the video, impressions?

Sources:

comment by Viliam · 2016-11-23T09:35:37.468Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Okay, I watched the video and it was impressive. If I start my own cult, I will definitely want to hire your video guy.

My impression is that there are a few good ideas in the core, but they are blown out of proportion ("motte and bailey"). The video is an advertisement, using the standard techniques to create a mountain out of a molehill. It's impressive and technically well-done, but when you are familiar with the pattern, it's just the same pattern again.

Generally, it feels like a LessWrong-inspired Scientology clone. They even talk about registering as a religion.

This is how it probably works in reality:

1) Create an effective spiral around a few keywords such as "logic", by providing a few clever insights, and then insisting that investing as much emotional energy as possible in these few insights will fix everything that is wrong with the world, or at least give you personal superpowers.

2) Subtly redefine "logic" to mean "what our leader says".

3) Profit!

comment by ingive · 2016-11-23T11:35:56.876Z · score: -2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

The video is an advertisement, using the standard techniques to create a mountain out of a molehill.

The video is an advertisement to create a mountain out of a mountain which is not proved to be a mountain yet. Otherwise, your idea will come across as a molehill even if you had a mountain or not, so it might be effective to pretend to be a mountain. I say the latter for the intersubjective reality of lesswrong (as defined in the video). It's done to raise awareness around the phenomena/get regular folks interested.

My impression is that there are a few good ideas in the core

It is logical, rational & critical thinking after all. Submitting yourself to rationality isn't too bad? The word doesn't matter as much as the process. Because people who value comfort, (presume the theory is correct) will rationalize and be a slave to this comfort, how can any thinking be critical if it stems from a flawed paradigm? Maybe even rationalists take this for granted as a human flaw to justify not getting the emotional part. That was speculation and assuming a lot.(intersubjective)

My impression is that there are a few good ideas in the core, but they are blown out of proportion ("motte and bailey").

Are they blown out of proportion because the evidence is the anecdotes/testimonies? We all get it that we need studies and peer-review, that's what most here would ask for before looking into it but at least see it's interesting. :D

What is the bait-and-switch here? What's the partial truth and the underlying falsehood? If you mean with the 4th step not being told before the 3rd and so forth, that makes sense to me, because why wouldn't it? It's not like there is a 5th step, it's all within the video if not there, the website, from there the wiki etc. The steps were generalized in the beginning I think.

Generally, it feels like a LessWrong-inspired Scientology clone. They even talk about registering as a religion.

In Germany you receive a lot of benefits for registering as a religion, as comparable to charity. The latter which they tried for many months, even getting ripped off by lawyers. Can't register a charity if you don't accept money because they simply funnel money to charity themselves without being middle-men. But after this new knowledge, they instantly did it I'd guess. Teaching neuroscience, evolutionary biology, AGI, in school in depth isn't too bad?

Create an effective spiral around a few keywords such as "logic", by providing a few clever insights, and then insisting that investing as much emotional energy as possible in these few insights will fix everything that is wrong with the world, or at least give you personal superpowers.

You're not supposed to think but to feeeel man. It's an emotional thing. An abstract definition of whatever you want the subconscious to attach to is enough (math patterns etc).

2) Subtly redefine "logic" to mean "what our leader says".

Indeed, this isn't about mathematical logic or whatever. Think of a definition of intelligence, information or stupidity, even known scientists redefine them to escape equations like krauker. Could be seen as metaphor.

comment by Viliam · 2016-11-23T14:00:52.561Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Otherwise, your idea will come across as a molehill even if you had a mountain or not, so it might be effective to pretend to be a mountain.

I agree that there is this "arms race" between advertisers and consumers, where advertisers always exaggerate, and then consumers learn to discount everything, so if you enter the debate without exaggerating, the consumers will discount anyway, and it will make you seem like a loser.

It's done to raise awareness around the phenomena/get regular folks interested.

My impression from this video is that the target audience is, uhm, the people who watch "Zeitgeist" or read "The Secret", and then can't stop talking about it for years. (Essentially, people with little critical thinking, searching for the magical "one weird trick" that will solve all their problems.)

And if your audience is the same, then the obvious hypothesis is that your product is also in the same category.

People more rational than this will probably be turned off by this kind of video. I may be wrong here; if any LW regular was impressed positively, please correct me.

Submitting yourself to rationality isn't too bad?

Depends on what you mean by that. Assuming you already are 100% rational, it would probably be a good thing. Assuming you are just an aspiring rationalist full of biases and mistaken assumptions, submitting yourself to your "rationality" effectively means submitting yourself to your biases and mistakes. (Or your leader's biases and mistakes; even if we assume their best intentions.)

Are they blown out of proportion because the evidence is the anecdotes/testimonies?

You mean those two or three seconds of anecdotes, followed by minutes of the standard advertising technique "this will be the best thing in your life... but before we get to anything specific, let me show you these cool pictures with emotional music... and more pictures and more music... and more... are you hooked on already? good... now more pictures and music... and more vague talk... okay, you have already spent twenty minutes of your time listening to me, so I guess you are ready to buy my product now".

Teaching neuroscience, evolutionary biology, AGI, in school in depth isn't too bad?

Let me guess... the teaching will be heavily interspersed with talking about "clicking".

(This is how Scientologists do it. They take something that already exists out there, simplify it sometimes to absurd levels, mix it with their Scientology lingo, and pretend that L Ron Hubbard invented all of that. If some of that advice worked for you, great, now you are a new believer in Scientology, convinced by your own experience.)

...

Uhm, is there a way to describe your techniques in a manner targeted to readers of LessWrong? You know, facts and proofs (or mere opinions where you admit they are mere opinions), without all this hype and nebulous promises?

Because you keep posting stuff that obviously doesn't fit the local audience, so why exactly do you keep doing that? This is not the first time you advertised this here.

Do you believe you are doing it the right way? The total lack of upvotes (and occassional downvotes) should be a sufficient hint. Silence is not consent here, unless accompanied by upvotes.

Or do you simply not have any other way to present your stuff? Then I suspect there is simply nothing there, behind the shiny clouds of advertising.

comment by ingive · 2016-11-23T15:17:54.726Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

My impression from this video is that the target audience is, uhm, the people who watch "Zeitgeist" or read "The Secret", and then can't stop talking about it for years. (Essentially, people with little critical thinking, searching for the magical "one weird trick" that will solve all their problems.)

In my opinion, this is a big part of the target audience with the video. Learning about neuroscience/rationality/evolutionary biology and so forth instead of some other curriculum which bases itself on unscientific things has a higher expected value in my opinion. Take a random person, they know nothing about rationality.

This book is written by the same person, if you take a few moments, it's not long to read some you can understand a little bit more what general public will be pushed towards, what kind of insights: magnet:?xt=urn:btih:e3ade7cdccc4aba33789686b9b9d765d7f14ae7b&dn=Real+Answers&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.leechers-paradise.org%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fzer0day.ch%3A1337&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fexodus.desync.com%3A6969 (he's uploaded it himself)

And if your audience is the same, then the obvious hypothesis is that your product is also in the same category.

No, because rational people want to become more rational what's the problem with a heuristic that is based on "Is this the most rational thing to do in this moment?" Or logical, whatever.

People more rational than this will probably be turned off by this kind of video. I may be wrong here; if any LW regular was impressed positively, please correct me.

Yes, it's meant for the general public. Rational people want evidence, scientific studies, peer-review, which is underway but it will take plenty of time. Meanwhile, with the available evidence you can make a decision wheter it is worth pursuing that which you already seek (rationality) but on an emotional level. Which is what it is all about.

Depends on what you mean by that. Assuming you already are 100% rational, it would probably be a good thing. Assuming you are just an aspiring rationalist full of biases and mistaken assumptions, submitting yourself to your "rationality" effectively means submitting yourself to your biases and mistakes. (Or your leader's biases and mistakes; even if we assume their best intentions.)

I agree, but it still hints towards neuroscience/evolutionary biology within the video and someone who submits themselves to rationality or logic should at least take a moment to read up on it and by visiting the website, wiki and so forth. Of course if the video didn't mention any of these things someone who values rationality might do things which are a result of a lack of knowledge. But knowledge is what such a person seeks, I presume.

Even if biases and mistakes are introduced it easily be seen as a higher expected value that people do this rather then not, someone who simply studies neuroscience/evolutionary biology and spreads the message is better. Because you have to take account if something is practical or not for the human species and evolving itself.

If you want to capitlize on people aligning rationality with emotions here you have a great shot at you being the leader not the follower as you've obviously noticed something which can happen.

You mean those two or three seconds of anecdotes, followed by minutes of the standard advertising technique "this will be the best thing in your life... but before we get to anything specific, let me show you these cool pictures with emotional music... and more pictures and more music... and more... are you hooked on already? good... now more pictures and music... and more vague talk... okay, you have already spent twenty minutes of your time listening to me, so I guess you are ready to buy my product now".

MrMind said he was contacting people who 'clicked' a long time to see what they've done differently since then. Would be interesting to know. You're right that the video doesn't go in-depth but it is for a certain audience like I responded just now. Here you can read testimonies: https://logicnation.org/wiki/Testimonies

Let me guess... the teaching will be heavily interspersed with talking about "clicking".

It's better if people learn to value critical thinking/rationality in society, clicking only happens if you grow to value something else I think. You can see the world for what it is now.

(This is how Scientologists do it. They take something that already exists out there, simplify it sometimes to absurd levels, mix it with their Scientology lingo, and pretend that L Ron Hubbard invented all of that. If some of that advice worked for you, great, now you are a new believer in Scientology, convinced by your own experience.)

But it doesn't already exist out there except for the objective reality. You're not going to remember an essay while you're meditating on what drives you emotionally. It is a religion, definetly, this logic stuff, that's exactly the mechanisms which are used. There are 6 B religious people for a reason. But here they praise neuroscience/evolutionary biology/chaos theory/quantum mechanics/mathematics/rationality the list goes on and on and they pray by doing 'logial tasks' in line with what they are.

Uhm, is there a way to describe your techniques in a manner targeted to readers of LessWrong? You know, facts and proofs (or mere opinions where you admit they are mere opinions), without all this hype and nebulous promises?

Of course it's possible especially if one of you make the connection how emotions drive us.

Because you keep posting stuff that obviously doesn't fit the local audience, so why exactly do you keep doing that? This is not the first time you advertised this here.

That's because of intersubjective reality, the objective reality is indifferent to local audience. What I am giving is the testimonies and the exercise, when studies are out maybe then people of LessWrong will try to 'click' themselves. The problem at hand though, I don't think evidence or rationality really matters that much.

The intersubjective reality is what drives people here and all across the world.

Do you believe you are doing it the right way? The total lack of upvotes (and occassional downvotes) should be a sufficient hint. Silence is not consent here, unless accompanied by upvotes.

No, of course not, but it would take a long time and besides, studies will speak for themselves if or when they come out.

Or do you simply not have any other way to present your stuff? Then I suspect there is simply nothing there, behind the shiny clouds of advertising.

Sorry, but if I could write like Yudkowsky all of you would at least try it and the world would change for the better. Here's the time when one of you recognize at least that something is going on and it's worth more investigation.

comment by Viliam · 2016-11-23T18:36:17.981Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

But here they praise neuroscience/evolutionary biology/chaos theory/quantum mechanics/mathematics/rationality the list goes on and on and they pray by doing 'logial tasks' in line with what they are.

I suppose this is the critical point of disagreement between us. Whether "praising science" is the right direction to go. (Because I don't doubt that your group is doing a good job at making some people praise science.)

More precisely, whether "praising science" leads to more science, or more pseudoscience. Because as long as you believe some specific pseudoscience is science, it is equally easy to praise it... and the pseudoscience has more degrees of freedom than real science, so unless specific precautions are taken, it can outcompete the real science. (In some sense, those "specific precautions" is what makes science science. And worship is definitely not one of them.)

Now reading the book... I am still at the beginning, but it already makes better impression than the video.

comment by ingive · 2016-11-23T20:29:55.207Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Neil Degrasse Tyson and more praise science, in the same way, it was just found out recently, actually today. It's called Spinozism or Spinoza's God. You can view a video about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVEeXjPiw54

On 24 April 1929, Einstein cabled Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in German: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10B1EFC3E54167A93C7AB178FD85F4D8285F9

His son, Dorion Sagan said, "My father believed in the God of Spinoza and Einstein, God not behind nature but as nature, equivalent to it.

Michio Kaku about Einstein's God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVg9KnAFak&feature=youtu.be&t=5m44s

Where this leads? This is exactly the same with the exception of the latest neuroscience research which builds and complete this, and this "clicking" thing to logic. What's been done here is what Tyson asks here literally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RjW5-4IiSc&feature=youtu.be&t=373

Personally, "the smartest man in the world" Chris Langan might even be on to this as well.

If Bachir has said he has had this for so many years and accomplished so much, looking at these others with "Spoza's God" a strong correlation is occurring as a part of our intrinsic need to find patterns in things. However true or false they are. Sagan pushed really hard on critical thinking, and Bachir does as well actually. By the way, then people "click" and report increased intelligence. It just makes sense. But we don't know 100% sure.

What comes next? Well with this new understanding, the documentary will be reuploaded and this is taken into consideration because it is groundbreaking when it comes to the intersubjective reality. Bachir is also going to be speaking at U.N, where he was invited yesterday. where he will talk about this as well although I don't know if it was because of this.

It's going to be called Neurospinozism since understandings in neuroscience completes what was missed on earlier.

P.S I am not a part of this I am just a watcher of his stream.

comment by ChristianKl · 2016-11-24T11:09:45.890Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

You can view a video about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVEeXjPiw54

Linking to Youtube video's doesn't help your case.

By the way, then people "click" and report increased intelligence. It just makes sense.

People who watch Zeitgeist also report that they suddenly understand politics much better. People feeling more intelligent is no useful sign. With the Dunning–Kruger effect it's not easy to understand that one doesn't understand a subject. Getting people to think they are smarter might produce more problems then it solves.

But we don't know 100% sure.

That's something that people say who don't understand the basics of probabilistic reasoning. If you aren't 100% sure, what's the probability that you attach to your theory being true?

comment by ingive · 2016-11-24T12:12:12.987Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Linking to Youtube video's doesn't help your case.

An excellent video which talks about Spinoza and Spinozism, which Einstein and Sagan had faith in... doesn't help my case? In the same manner, you assume that Spinoza and this isn't linked, without refuting it.

If you were serious about youtube videos not helping cases, that's fine.

People who watch Zeitgeist also report that they suddenly understand politics much better. People feeling more intelligent is no useful sign. With the Dunning–Kruger effect it's not easy to understand that one doesn't understand a subject. Getting people to think they are smarter might produce more problems then it solves.

That implies one is ignorant at baseline which makes no sense if you value logic and critical thinking at the core, emotionally. If people report wanting to understand the world and is reiterated multiple times, doesn't go along with the belief you already know it all. You presume that they are lying, in the same manner, Einstein or Sagan lied about their belief in the God of Spinoza. How do we know if someone has converted or not? (I presume that there is a link between God of Spinoza and intelligence, it seems more likely than before, even if it's a correlation this exercise might imply causality)

That's something that people say who don't understand the basics of probabilistic reasoning. If you aren't 100% sure, what's the probability that you attach to your theory being true?

I was euphoric, it was a heuristic. I still don't understand any probabilistic reasoning or how to make a calculation outside of intuition. Since there isn't any peer-review or papers surrounding the exercise itself I have too little data honestly. But since we know now that Einstein and Sagan had a similar belief, it seems more likely that this religion will spread but I don't know how much. If you have the intersubjective/objective definitions from earlier (in the documentary) Spinozism is very intersubjective I presume.

comment by ChristianKl · 2016-11-24T22:21:25.061Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

If you were serious about youtube videos not helping cases, that's fine.

Yes. Referring to arguments that are made in text is more convincing. Especially when the text refers to actual sources.

That implies one is ignorant at baseline which makes no sense if you value logic and critical thinking at the core, emotionally.

There's no evidence that people who value logic are less prone to Dunning–Kruger.

On the other hand a person who derives everything from one logical tree is a hedgehog and therefore more likely to be overconfident in his opinions.

I still don't understand any probabilistic reasoning

Yes.

how to make a calculation outside of intuition

You don't need to do calculations outside of intuition. It's fine if you give a probability judgement that's based on intuition. The fact that you are using intuition doesn't prevent you from making probability judgments.

Since there isn't any peer-review or papers surrounding the exercise itself

How do you know? Did you do a literature search?

comment by ingive · 2016-11-24T23:12:47.126Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Yes. Referring to arguments that are made in text is more convincing. Especially when the text refers to actual sources.

https://logicnation.org/wiki/A_simple_click Although there are no sources for a lot of the content here for the exception of Spinozism etc, but you can find some in the video sources. If you think you've read it before, it's been updated now.

There's no evidence that people who value logic are less prone to Dunning–Kruger. On the other hand a person who derives everything from one logical tree is a hedgehog and therefore more likely to be overconfident in his opinions.

I can agree, I shouldn't have written that, but you did quote it out of context as well, but I think I understand my mistake.

Yes.

Yes.

You don't need to do calculations outside of intuition. It's fine if you give a probability judgement that's based on intuition. The fact that you are using intuition doesn't prevent you from making probability judgments.

How do you update your probability then, if you estimated at 20% for example, and it turned out to be correct (100%)? It could still act within the 20% probability.

How do you know? Did you do a literature search?

Well, it's very unlikely that there is a paper with the exactly the same methodology but I can't be certain of it. I wouldn't know what to search for. It's like someone writing a piece of music, the likelihood someone else has, note-by-note is very unlikely. It sounds to me as you're asking me if I do pursue literature search in general, or that you have found something which is similar.

comment by ChristianKl · 2016-11-25T01:21:55.790Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

How do you update your probability then, if you estimated at 20% for example, and it turned out to be correct (100%)? It could still act within the 20% probability.

In general you can calibrate yourself by making many guesses. Tetlock's Superforcasting is a good book if you want to go deeper.

It sounds to me as you're asking me if I do pursue literature search in general

To me it appears like you hold your beliefs based on arguments made in pop-science instead of having engaged with the academic literature. At least that's the impression I get when you try to refer to Youtube videos as backup.

comment by ingive · 2016-11-25T11:02:16.999Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

To me it appears like you hold your beliefs based on arguments made in pop-science instead of having engaged with the academic literature. At least that's the impression I get when you try to refer to Youtube videos as backup.

That's not true, a respectable philosophy channel talking about the history of a philosopher is not pop-science. You're welcome to watch the videos before making straw man arguments. Videos of biographies and Neil Tyson speaking about his love for the cosmos, or Michio Kaku talking about Einstein's beliefs has nothing to do with whatever narrow view you have of how to share information.

comment by ChristianKl · 2016-11-25T11:28:11.108Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Both of those are pop-science. Neil deGrasse Tyson is famous for doing pop-science. He isn't a philosopher, studies the history of science or has expertise in cognitive science. He's the planetarium director at the American Museum of Natural History.

His video's about his love for the cosmos might be good for getting young people motivated to take up scientific careers but they are pop-science. The are not arguments that are supposed to withstand academic rigor. Neil deGrasse Tyson wouldn't get papers about his love for the universe published in peer reviewed journals.

comment by ingive · 2016-11-25T15:17:44.921Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

This has nothing to do with the argument made in the first post they were mentioned, the way Neil deGrasse Tyson talked about the experiment and religious experiences was a funny coincidence.

Exactly, so why are you even bringing up academic literature in a discussion that has nothing to do with it whatsoever. His love for the universe could be published in a neuro study similar to religious experiences. That would be cool if it is done and if it is or is not the case.

I kind of understand what you mean now, yes the argument is based on pop-science because you can't have love of the universe in a video published in peer-reviewed journals. It has nothing to do with this, for the exception of the exercise, the click and so forth, that should be published.

comment by ChristianKl · 2016-11-25T22:38:11.506Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Exactly, so why are you even bringing up academic literature in a discussion that has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

Well yes. That's the point I was making. What you are saying is detached from academic science and you don't make appeals to real academic science. Or for that matter to other serious writing.

comment by ingive · 2016-11-25T22:44:49.240Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I understand what you mean. Do you have any suggestions where to start?

comment by ChristianKl · 2016-11-25T22:47:57.761Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Do you know how you can access scientific papers?

comment by ingive · 2016-11-25T22:55:46.050Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Yes, I have used pubmed, although I am not that good at searching yet. After that, I get the full papers from sci-hub.

comment by Viliam · 2016-11-24T09:14:47.463Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

By the way, then people "click" and report increased intelligence.

Intelligence tests are already developed and quite cheap. Testing these claims empirically would take about 2 hours and 20 dollars per person.

comment by Good_Burning_Plastic · 2016-11-24T09:27:51.547Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Those tests are pretty sensible to training effects, so giving them twice to the same person would result in a higher score the second time almost no matter what.

comment by Viliam · 2016-11-24T14:52:25.268Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Good point, but the experiment could have a control group which doesn't do anything but takes the tests twice.

And someone probably already did the control-group part of this experiment, i.e. measured how much does the IQ increase after test retake. So we just need to know if the measured IQ of the people who "clicked" increases more that that.

Also, as far as I remember, the effect is something like plus 5 or 10 IQ points. (May differ for different tests, though. Some tests have multiple variants, so even if you benefit from the training, at least you cannot benefit from remembering the correct answers in the previous test.) The people who "clicked" report that their intelligence increased tenfold or hundredfold -- they obviously use a different scale, but if that corresponds to +5 or more IQ point, it should be measurable.

comment by ingive · 2016-11-24T10:51:10.931Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Intelligence is not only analytical skills, rhetoric, pattern recognition, more abstract things. Working memory tests might measure g but not overall intelligence, Krakauer defines intelligence and stupidity in specific ways:

Intelligence is, as I say to people, one of the topics about which we have been most stupid. All our definitions of intelligence are based on measurements that can only be applied to humans—by and large, humans that speak English or what have you. An IQ test is not interesting if you’re trying to calculate the intelligence of an octopus—which I would like to know, because I believe in evolution. I think we need to understand where these things come from, and having a definition that applies just to one particular species doesn’t help us. We’ve talked about entropy and computation, and they’re going to be the keys to understanding intelligence.

Let’s go back to randomness. The example I like to give is Rubik’s cube, because it’s a beautiful little mental model, a metaphor. If I gave you a cube and asked you to solve it, and you just randomly manipulated it, since it has on the order of 10 quintillion solutions, which is a very large number, if you were immortal, you would eventually solve it. But it would take a lifetime of several universes to do so. That is random performance. Stupid performance is if you took just one face of the cube and manipulated that one face and rotated it forever. As everyone knows, if you did that, you would never solve the cube. It would be an infinite process that would never be resolved. That, in my definition, would be stupid. It is significantly worse than chance.

Now let’s take someone who has learned how to manipulate a cube and is familiar with various rules that allow you, from any initial configuration, to solve the cube in 20 minutes or less. That is intelligent behavior, significantly better than chance. This sounds a little counterintuitive, perhaps, until you realize that’s how we use the word in our daily lives. If I sat down with an extraordinary mathematician and I said, “I can’t solve that equation,” and he said, “Well, no, it’s easy. Here, this is what you do,” I’d look at it and I’d say, “Oh, yes, it is easy. You made that look easy.” That’s what we mean when we say someone is smart. They make things look easy.

If, on the other hand, I sat down with someone who was incapable, and he just kept dividing by two, for whatever reason, I would say, “What on earth are you doing? What a stupid thing to do. You’ll never solve the problem that way.”

So that is what we mean by intelligence. It’s the thing we do that ensures that the problem is efficiently solved and in a way that makes it appear effortless. And stupidity is a set of rules that we use to ensure that the problem will be solved in longer than chance or never and is nevertheless pursued with alacrity and enthusiasm.

You can ask when you're a neurospinozist and have logic as your core value, what is the problem which we are given? To understand the world, God, but what else? Why do we have this amazing brain with neuroplasticity, and why do most of us use it to feed something like comfort or validation when looking at neuroscience these things are so flawed?

Personally might be social conditioning, I click into it when I am writing this because it's just right there in front of us.

comment by Viliam · 2016-11-24T15:07:38.429Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Seems like the worship of science stops when science starts contradicting your claims. :P

Seriously, there are some valid objections against IQ tests, but it feels like you have dismissed the topic too easily here. Almost as if you know there is actually no dragon in the garage.

comment by ingive · 2016-11-24T17:33:44.645Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

But that's not true, science hasn't contradicted any of my claims. In fact, it is in full support at this moment, the scientific process is in ongoing.

Sorry about that. What I mean you can quantify intelligence as per Krakauer's definition as well before and after. It's unlikely g - general intelligence is increased (working memory) but maybe, then tests can be done easily, before and after in a clinical setting. Two trials of a test shouldn't have a big of a training effect but that can be taken into consideration as well as with all other variables.

:)

comment by ChristianKl · 2016-11-24T11:02:31.477Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

In Germany you receive a lot of benefits for registering as a religion, as comparable to charity. The latter which they tried for many months, even getting ripped off by lawyers. Can't register a charity if you don't accept money because they simply funnel money to charity themselves without being middle-men. But after this new knowledge, they instantly did it I'd guess

That paragraph sounds like you think in the US terms of registering organsiation. Which actual German registrations do you mean?

comment by ingive · 2016-11-24T12:27:42.239Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I don't know, that's what I heard. Are you familiar with German registrations?

comment by ChristianKl · 2016-11-24T22:32:49.837Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I'm familiar enough to get the impression that what you are saying seems strange. I'm German.

comment by ingive · 2016-11-24T23:27:01.949Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Maybe you can email reese or something reese@gamingforgood.net if you are this interested. I have no clue.

It's hard for me to google because it's probably in german so you have an easier time. Registering as a charity seems to give tax benefits, religion might not even exist as registration, if so it might be some form of U.N registration.

Might say something here or the links in the wiki: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaubensgemeinschaft

comment by ChristianKl · 2016-11-25T01:12:09.506Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

religion might not even exist as registration

You saying that you have no clue whether what you said previously said is wrong? First you claim that registering as religion provides benefits and then you claim that it might not exist?

To me your response of giving me the email of Reese (whoever that is) sounds like you don't care about whether what you are saying is true enough to check it for yourself.

comment by ingive · 2016-11-25T10:51:35.958Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Well, I assume that there has to be some form of registration at some level, for example, to accept donations as they have to be taxed. It's important when you talk with people to not butcher what they say, write out of context, yes you are right. But you can respond to an entire message.

I figure you were suspicious and welcomed you to investigate, you are the one who read and writes german here and can research the tax agency or whatever. It seems as you just want to be right and don't care whether something is strange or not.

comment by ChristianKl · 2016-11-25T11:00:03.596Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

It seems as you just want to be right and don't care whether something is strange or not.

The most likely explanation is that what you said is simply a reflection of misunderstanding what someone else told you.

No research of German laws will give me an idea about what you meant with "But after this new knowledge, they instantly did it I'd guess".

From my feeling of suspicion because of strangeness and your answer the default response is to conclude that you don't know what you are talking about. Or care whether the things you mention as evidence for the advantages are true.

comment by ingive · 2016-11-25T11:18:20.915Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

That's simply a writing error, I mean that they tried to register as a charity because a religion wasn't suitable for a charity org, but after this click thing they instantly try and register religion.

From my feeling of suspicion because of strangeness and your answer the default response is to conclude that you don't know what you are talking about. Or care whether the things you mention as evidence for the advantages are true.

I don't understand.

comment by ChristianKl · 2016-11-25T22:32:07.982Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

The issue is that there's no "register as religion" in Germany in the narrow sense. Religions are registered associations (Eingetragene Vereine) or (Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts). You would also register a charity as an registered associations.

If a member of your religion wants to say that you threw him out for unfair reasons, then you can argue to the government that you are a religion and don't have to provide any rational reasons for throwing people out but otherwise there's not much difference. In that case a judge would decide whether you should be treated as a religion or shouldn't.