Posts
Comments
The big difference between the two is that commuting is isolating whereas trains/subways put you around other human beings. Also, having to focus on other slow moving vehicles is mentally taxing with no obvious benefit. Being able to read, or sometimes nap, is liberating.
Done. I didn't mean to imply that none of the others mentioned were attractive, but I understand the concern. Thanks for the heads up.
Sure. You are having to cache each thought with certain assumptions in mind (e.g. group of people that like the singularity, people that tolerate talking about the possibility of computers, people that take fantasy seriously, a person that doesn't seem interested in any of the things that the aforementioned might). If we try to think about these assumptions as variables, attempting to cache for a future conversations quickly leads to combinatoric explosion leaving you with an impossible number of things to think about before. This forces you to consider a small number of cases that may well do more harm then good.
I also don't like cache here because of how static in implies the ideas are. Conversation, and quality thinking, are dynamic and deserve to be let evolve on their own.
So the nice thing about pajek, and some other network displaying software, is that you can use algorithms that will attempt display things that are closely related to each other closer together. If I were going to produce your graphic I would:
- Get the graph in memory some how, for one this size I would just set up some hash maps in irb
- Write a text file where each line consists of two nodes that are connected seperated by a tab.
- Use the software here: http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/pub/networks/pajek/howto/text2pajek.htm to get a pajek file
- Open it in pajek and preform a physics based layout algorithim
- Export to png
It's pretty cool what you can get out form this (I made this: http://a3.twimg.com/profile_images/56256047/bhtv3d.png Network of bhtv coversations) and there's a lot to be gained by checked out what ends up near the center etc.
Let me know if you have any questions. I'd be glad to help.
Don't know if I did, but I think this caching notion is a bad way to look at it. However, to inject a positive note, thinking about the connections between your interests is a fruitful activity that has value far beyond pre planning conversations.
A png version would look a lot better. Did you use pajek to make it?
I think you are thinking about this the wrong way. Coming into a social situation with a prepared set of ideas to cover is something a preacher does. Doesn't mean it doesn't have its place for certain situations, but it is not the way to approach having a conversation.
Good conversations are a complicated interaction between people. If you want to have a good one with someone, you need to hold their interest as well as your own. To extend a ridiculous metaphor a little further, cache misses in this context with cost you a bit more than a few hundred cycles, it could blow a chance at a quality interaction with another person.
I find the best technique for conversation is to try to find something that they are interested in. You never know where it might lead, and that is interesting.
Yeah I like Kevin's short answer. But in general I said to Rain:
You can say you will do something. If someone doesn't trust that assertion, how will they ever trust 'no really I'm serious'.
When you make something a contract you see there are some legal teeth, but swearing to uphold the constitution feels silly.
In theory but I wonder how long it has been since you were in school. In GA they got around to making a rule that if you were suspended you would lose your drivers license. Also, suspensions typically imply a 0 on all assignments (and possibly tests) that were due for its duration.
Personally, I consider it very important to know the rules, laws, commitments, etc., for which I may be responsible, so when I or someone else breaks them, I can clearly note it.
Far out. That is important.
As for your story, it's something I would have done but I hope you understand that a little tact could have gone a long way.
What I was trying to get at you seem to think also. You think you are sending a 'weak signal' that you are committed to something. But you are using words that I think many around here would be suspicious of (e.g. oath and sworn).
You can say you will do something. If someone doesn't trust that assertion, how will they ever trust 'no really I'm serious'.
Do you really take that sort of thing seriously? Far out if you do, but I have trouble with the concept of an 'oath'.
e^(pi*i) = -1
Anything else: lame.
?
I hardly needed a sad person's false praise. Not being in pitiful emotional state, that has been described more lucidly that I could by others, is all the reward I need.
You asked for advice, I gave some. If you're a jerk to others in a similar situation you may not have much to care about afterwards.
I'm surprised no one has suggested it, but if you think that you have clinical depression I would strongly suggest seeking help. I have been depressed, I sought help and life moves on.
Well at least this was to a different person. Changing default behaviors is incredibly difficult. Nicely done though :)
Biology is the hot science right now. Knowledge about evolution was going to be very superficial until genetics came along. Now that tools are available, we are learning all sorts of things at an amazing clip.
Tip: You could pm the people about the error. No need for a permanent public record for trivial mistakes.
One symptom from the linked definition of groupthink:
Exercising direct pressure on others
Seriously though man, you're the one that has the overwhelming karma lead around here. Seems a little petty to police 4 dissenting votes.
making an unreasonable request for censorship
This was done in the past and I think it was a great request.
demanding work (software) that you don't have the right to ask for.
It was a suggestion that I think people here would enjoy doing. I always have fun when I'm coding something experimental (of course these things are always fun until they're not).
Downvoted for wasting my time with many paragraphs of empty status signals
Interesting charge. Don't worry though, I caught your hostile signals.
Fair point. It would have been more precise to say raise the difficulty in charging etc.
Lots of different words and phrases "devalue" different technical terms, since they exist outside of their technical definition. From what I can see from the OED, group think has been used as a term since 1923 and similar phrases like group mind were used in the late 19th century. Because someone makes a definition in a field it does not strip the original word or phrase of its meaning. If that was the case I'm sure lawyers would have a field day with all of us and that I could pick out quite a few misuses of onto on this site.
The technical meaning you point to is interesting. However, it does not even apply to this site as no one here is making decisions by committee, this is a forum/group blog. I'm surprised you pointed to it as the culture here has some of the pathologies mentioned, such as:
Not seeking expert opinion
Being highly selective in gathering information
These two aren't really as much are your fault, it's a bummer we can't access/share academic articles that pertain to many of the subjects discussed here.
A little more trouble for this site is the solutions though:
Having leaders remain impartial
Obvious trouble.
Using outside experts
One of Eliezer's biggest flaw's is his high opinion of himself and those that agree with him:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/25848?in=49:06&out=49:12
Along with it the wholesale writing off of others that he knows very little of. From Eliezer's point of view there are very few, if any, experts of any worth to consult on many issues at all. This sort of thought is toxic for collaboration with others and can be profoundly isolating.
The history of this site is not very long and it should not surprise anyone that most around here tow the Eliezer line. He created this site after becoming a smallish blog celebrity on overcomingbias. That those that came to populate this site largely agree with him should not at all be surprising. That you think no one should be able to charge groupthink comes off as incredibly defense and really silly given that it would be a little shocking if it wasn't here.
Now to try to be constructive, here are some things that could facilitate interesting discussions around here:
- Ban topics that make you look nuts and that you largely agree on already: FAI and cryonics.
The time when FAI was banned seemed to have a much more diverse and interesting discourse. Why retread the same old topics when you could explore new things that no one here knows what 'Rationality' should say about it?
- Less talking please.
Let's see some algorithms/programs or something besides overly long posts. I bet some cool stuff could come out of it. Why argue about which two things are better when you could try to see by testing it. Go empiricism.
It's true. However I think people get a little caught up in the China is growing story. Russia is a dying country in a lot of ways. However, both are heavily controlled by corrupt leaders.
EDIT:was->ways
This is really strange then:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=per+capita+gdp+of+russia%2Fper+capita+gdp+of+china
I think he raised a very valid concern. Also, cost is a very important dimension in terms of technological development. If money were not an issue, I have little doubt that we would have seen manned missions to Mars and several asteroids. However, money is very much an issue.
Why will so much go into recovering brains when new ones are so damn cheap?
Securities law does that.
Let me just endorse what Douglas Knight said.
You seem to have no clue what insider trading laws are. Company employees and executives can purchase stock. However it is illegal to act on information that is not public.
You can look for filings to see what executives are purchasing positions in their companies. Like you say, it is good sign if people who know the company well are buying in.
Wow. I replied to the minimum wage stuff a little in another post but I believe you have given me some low laying fruit.
insider trading laws
You wouldn't only think this was a problem if you were a proponent of the strong efficient market hypothesis. There aren't many people out there that don't have misgivings about the weak version, much less the strong one.
income tax/capital gains tax
Hmm. I'll let you explain further. Is it that these are less efficient than other taxes, or is it that they are the way government raise revenue?
The other ones could be interesting to debate, but I think you are a pretty serious libertarian who will not be happy unless society is organized in your way.
Sorry to take so long to get back to you on this but I do think this stuff is important.
This line from wikipedia on the minimum wage really captures what I would like to say about a lot of this stuff:
Michael Anyadike-Danes and Wyne Godley [21] argue, based on simulation results, that little of the empirical work done with the textbook model constitutes a potentially falsifying test, and, consequently, empirical evidence hardly exists for that model.
The minimum wage stuff is Econ 101/ideological claim that doesn't take into account a lot of factors. There is a lot to say about this one issue but the lack of empirical evidence is an important thing to keep in mind about economics.
I think the point about rent control is right, but I think you are leaving out positive externalities: middle class workers can live near their place of employment.
The fuel price ceilings in the 70s sounds ridiculous to me though. It turns out the price spikes were largely due to OPEC. There is much less harm if you are dealing with a monopolist/oligopolist with low cost in setting a low price.
In another comment I addressed farm subsidies. They are pernicious and many people wish they would die.
Purchaser subsidies...I went to a school with low tuition that was subsidized by the state. Student loans are not exactly the biggest factor in tuition rates so I don't think there is much of a point to be had there. Mortgage interest tax deductions are an absurd tax break for the rich and lets get rid of them.
Low interest rates cause speculative asset bubbles and malinvestment.
That is not a result of economics but it is a favored talking point of the right who would prefer not to talk about over-leveraged-formerly-seen-as-perfectly-rational financial institutions. Low interest rates leading to inflation during times of high utilization in the short to medium term is a result of macro know as the Phillips Curve.
Bubbles almost always are the result of herd behavior which is not a prediction of economics; nevertheless they are very real.
Banning the sale and purchase of drugs does not work and makes some criminals very wealthy.
This is a complex issue. Personally I'd like to see most substances removed from the criminal justice system.
Let me first return to your first point:
That's a caricature of microeconomics and is not necessary to make useful predictions based on microeconomic reasoning.
No it isn't. I am quite familiar with microeconomics mathematical models and you really need some simple frameworks/powerful differentiation techniques to get far. If you are willing to throw out all talk about consumer surplus then you might get a start with a workable framework. However, this is what so many people that love hard-right econ love to tout.
Perfect rationality/information assumptions are made because they are mathematically easy. I'd love to see some bounded rationality models, but trust me that it opens up all sorts of mathematical thickets.
I used to be very sympathetic to the right-wing investor/business community and I am very familiar with their arguments. Often when they say they are arguing with economics on their side, they are arguing from a highly ideological point of view and very few people will admit/realize that.
I haven't gotten back to matt's post, but I will. This sort of amazes me:
Well the models influencing the academy and what influences public policy are definitely not the same
Economist have a huge amount of influence in public policy and US jurisprudence. I would be shocked to hear about another set of models simply for political and judicial consumption. Often they are leaning on economists and not the original work, but they would still be using the same model in this case.
Were it not for the structure of the Senate, we wouldn't have farm subsidies. Everybody but those from largely flat and empty states want them gone.
Good question. I would say that does happen. Dan Drezner comes mind on this front.
I meant to say that if it had little influence outside of the academy.
Look if econ had little influence outside its field, I would agree and say who cares. However this is hardly case.
I would agree with something you suggested though. We would do well do just discuss the end results and remember that the models are trash.
I asked about a prediction in human behavior. I am quite well aware of these predictions that are made in general, but this is in an absurdly abstract model with patently false assumptions.
It predicts that, all else being equal, a rise in the price of a good or service will reduce demand for that good or service. Do you think that prediction is wrong?
No, I think it is trivial.
Utility functions in microeconomics are not very useful for predicting human behavior contrary to what you claim. The OP was correct to look for more interesting classes of functions.
(Micro)economics does quite a good job of predicting human behaviour based on a very simple model of predictable rationality
This is news to me. I'd love to hear what predictions of human behavior have been made.
The article you linked to was an absolute joke though. Behavioral economics is a much richer subject than the experiment that was being discussed.
Hmm, you don't think omitting it also implies all schools do it?
I'm trying to make the point that its easy to jump on (especially glaring) imprecision. Your general thrust is weakened, often unfairly, by its presence. It can be a bummer for an argument if people jump on imprecise things, but hopefully you can stop that before it happens by omitting them in the first place.
I think that is fair. That would be the reasonable thing to do in a debate.
Precision in this case is not any longer (i.e. always vs typically). It can at times, but for people down with logic, you'd think always versus there exists, etc. would be a big deal.
That's really pretty ridiculous. You can try to speak precisely. Why should we all concede that hyperbole is acceptable in an argument?
If you want to argue about student loans you could: approach it from another side or focus on elite/private law schools. Overstating your case only works when preaching to the choir. Then, it misinforms and makes you less credible to others.
Consider me incredibly underwhelmed to hear a recitation of Eliezer's views.
It is humorous that you simply assert that Lanier just misuses the word ideology. What I find compelling is his advice to simply do the work and see what can be done.
Eliezer is a story teller. You like his stories and apparently find them worth retelling. Far out. I expect that is what you will always get from him. Look for results elsewhere.
I thought people would have seen the videos, and thus what I was talking about this in context. Oh well here are quotes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vecaDF7pnoQ#t=2m26s
That's how the world gets saved.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arsI1JcRjfs#t=2m30
The thing that will kill them when they don't sign up for cryonics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbzV5Oxkx1E#t=4m00s
But for now it can help the rest of us save the world.
(Probably some paraphrasing but the quotes are in the videos).
So other quotes were in the vimeo video, but these mainly concern the argument that the singularity is obviously the number one priority. Also troubling to me is the idea the the world is irredeemably flawed before the emergence of FAI. Christianity very much rests on the notion that the world is hopeless without redemption from god.
So the similarity mainly lies in the notion that we need a savior, and look we have one! The you will die without cryonics is sort of icing on the cake.
To all this I would mainly argue what Jaron Lanier does here:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/15555?in=00:46:48&out=00:51:08
While Eliezer asserts that he will cure AIDS.
There is a lot to like about this world and a lot of problems to work on. However, it is ridiculous to assert you know the number one priority for earth when you have no evidence that your project will be nearly as successful as you think it will be.
I'm not so sure that this post is something I need to see. I was pointing out parallels in Eliezer's language to something you would hear from an evangelist.
If there is a specific point you'd like to discuss I'd be happy to do that.
Thanks for the reply...the downvoting without it is sort of a bummer.
Notice I did not bring up the rapture...Eliezer does not really use similar language in that regard. Use of the word save though strikes me as more Christian though.
Fuckin' a on the god shaped hole stuff. I don't have much patience for people that put arguments forward like that.
I think that there are very Christian religious overtones in what Eliezer talks about. In his recently posted answers to questions the term saved was used more than once and many times there was reference to how the world is incredibly screwed without the singularity.
You may have ideas that are more traditionally religious, but don't think that others around here don't have thoughts that rhyme with yours.
Why do you think there are only 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 8 or 12 or 42 or 248 or n spatial dimensions?
I think we have good reason to believe that we are in 3 spatial dimensions. But as you say:
The extra dimensions could likely not impact our system of physics in any way we can detect.
What exactly is the point of these dimensions? I see no reason to concede extra dimensions to make the fact that we are living in a simulation more probable.
Wow, I really am curious why you think this would apply to spacial dimensions.
You are suggesting a world with much more energy then the one that we know. It seems you should assign a lower probability to there being a much higher energy universe.
Look, when you are sure you are right everything confirms your belief.
Who are these 'neutral scientists'? When did climate scientists leave this class? What expert would just cede policy considerations to non-experts? I hope this class of people is a rare breed.
Climate science has obvious policy implications since CO2 is the problem.
Other sciences have had results that have clear policy implications. CFCs were bad. Marijuana is not that harmful. Cigarettes kill. Sometimes these results have helped develop good policy. Other times they were ignored.
Saying CO2 is a problem is bound to become much more political. How does that have any effect on the science? It doesn't.
The noise around a subject can be a measure of the subject's importance. It doesn't translate into some sort of useful truth measure.
Just so we are clear: What do you think about climate science?
It is important to remember that most of its work was before it was political. Just because energy (mainly coal and oil) companies don't like the policy implications of climate science and are willing to pay lots of people to speak ill of it, shouldn't make it a politicized science. Indeed this would place evolutionary biology into the highly politicized science category.
Allowing a subject's ideological enemies to have a say in its status without having hard evidence is not rational at all.
Why you insist on being dogmatic on this is beyond me. In your writings on the subject, you admit you don't understand the math behind quantum mechanics, which is in fact the model. Why be so sure you are right about the interpretation of the model you don't understand?
People look kindly on those who are humble when commenting on things outside of their expertise. People that go around making bold claims about things about which they are not that knowledgeable are labeled cranks, and rightfully so.