post by [deleted] · · score: 0 (0 votes) · ? · GW · 0 comments

This is a link post for


Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Chris_Leong · 2017-10-03T08:19:15.839Z · score: 7 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I'd probably choose either Intellectual Turing Tests or Steelmanning as one of mine. If you get into this habit then you gain the ability to learn much more from other people. (I wouldn't go with Double Crux because this isn't useful unless you get someone else to use it with you)

comment by abramdemski · 2017-10-04T06:52:46.115Z · score: 7 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

#2 is (almost) half of double crux! Stating/seeking your cruxes is still quite useful even if it is one-sided (or if you're alone). It's a combination of asking how you could be wrong and making sure that beliefs pay rent in anticipated experiences.

comment by Conor Moreton · 2017-10-04T07:38:05.780Z · score: 4 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Yeah—I picked that specifically out of a desire to 80/20 the double crux maneuver, and a sense that it was easier to ask this hypothetical high schooler to do something that would confer (scientific) virtue upon themselves than to insist that they assume virtue (good faith) on the part of their ideological opponents.

comment by Conor Moreton · 2017-10-03T15:52:06.400Z · score: 4 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Yeah, I agree ITTs and Steelmanning are very high up there. One of those almost certainly would've been sixth for me, so I wouldn't be surprised to see others having them in the top 5.

comment by J_Thomas_Moros · 2017-10-03T15:45:51.890Z · score: 6 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

A couple typos:

  1. The date you give is "(11/30)" it should be "(10/30)"

  2. "smedium" should be "medium"

comment by Conor Moreton · 2017-10-03T15:53:14.116Z · score: 7 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I appreciate the help! Neither of them is actually a typo, though—it's the eleventh post out of thirty, and "smedium" is a joke word, a portmanteau between "small" and "medium."

comment by J_Thomas_Moros · 2017-10-03T15:55:21.141Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Oh, sorry

comment by Conor Moreton · 2017-10-03T16:20:13.312Z · score: 7 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I really meant it when I said I appreciate, though. I do other writing online, and for real—the people who point out my typos are making my piece stronger and less vulnerable to dismissal by its readers, and I'm genuinely grateful to anyone who takes the time.

i.e. apology accepted but really you didn't have to offer one in the first place. You were doing me a favor, and I thank you for it.

comment by Raemon · 2017-10-03T16:32:24.512Z · score: 4 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Earnest suggestion: call it smmedium or something. I thought it might be a joke but was leaning towards not and was going to post about it myself. One letter of difference is too small to look deliberate enough to just work. (I think it probably works better in spoken word)

comment by Conor Moreton · 2017-10-03T17:19:03.728Z · score: 10 (3 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)





comment by Gyrodiot · 2017-10-03T09:27:01.864Z · score: 5 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Thank you for this! I find this list extremely useful. I notice you described the items from the point of view of someone already familiar with the concepts, and you made a good case for them.

I expect to have to expand at length on the points you made, if I have to present them to someone not familiar with rationality. I would consider them as an excellent way to jumpstart a conversation about the mechanisms behind those suggestions (ability to change one's mind, have a more precise view of reality, being able to achieve goals, etc.)

comment by megasilverfist · 2017-10-03T12:55:58.449Z · score: 3 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Small but important change State every belief as a probability that is less than 100% -> State every belief as a probability that is less than 100% and greater than 0.

comment by gjm · 2017-10-03T13:13:27.792Z · score: 7 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I think Conor means specifically that instead of saying "P" you should say (and think) "P, with probability p". In these cases, you're in no danger of taking p=0, or indeed of taking p<1/2.

(Of course I agree -- and I'm sure Conor does too -- that in general, when stating probabilities, you want to avoid probabilities of 0 and 1. Though in some extreme cases I think the actual downside of treating the probabilities as 0 or 1 is negligible, and doing so is a useful optimization.)

comment by Conor Moreton · 2017-10-03T15:54:01.322Z · score: 4 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Endorsed. =)