Home › Media › General Media
Tachyon vs. Singularitarian Libertarian Math Nerds: Let's Read Less Wrong!
The plan is that I'll start with the kinds of posts a newbie Lesswrongian encounters first - Yudkowsky's brand of geeky self-help, armchair psychology and rationalist backpatting. Assuming I keep going with this, I intend to review The Methods of Rationality, take on Roko's Basilisk, and examine some of the kookier fringe movements popular with Lesswrongians, possibly including the 'Dark Enlightenment' itself. But all that is assuming I don't get bored after the first few entries. For now I'm starting small, so we'll see how long it takes before I never want to hear the word 'singularity' again.
A note of caution - for those who aren't aware, some of the content of LW is decidedly un-PC, and some Lesswrongians are downright bigoted. As far as I'm aware, Yudkowsky himself isn't too bad; still, I'll do my best to give fair warning if the content of the site approaches racist, sexist or otherwise hateful territory.
On a related note, I realize this kind of thread has the potential to become a mock thread very quickly. I'm going to resist that temptation, and because I don't want this thread to get prematurely shut down, I ask that you please do the same. If the stuff I'm reading is stupid, I'm not going to hesitate to say so, but I will try not to be cruel and will give the Lesswrongians' arguments a fair listen. If any mods or admins think I'm out of line please let me know.
This reads kind of like an advertisement for the site. 'Interested in improving your reasoning and decision-making skills?' Why, yes, I am. Let's see what you have to offer, Less Wrong. Helpfully, they provide a list of articles to get newbie Lesswrongians started. Amusingly, the page also contains a warning that the community uses extensive jargon (they recommend using their wiki to understand it) and that users of the site 'don't automatically reject... and sometimes endorse' ideas which they term odd, such as transhumanism, cryonics and what they euphemistically call 'caution regarding AI research'.
There's information about IRL meetups, an FAQ, and information on how to contribute to the site. They also assert that 'blog archives can make for better reading than books'. We shall see about that.
At this point I must say I'm already a little confused - specifically about the name of the site. Is it LessWrong or Less Wrong? The logo at the top of every page says the former, but otherwise they seem to prefer the latter.
The first linked article is entitled 'Your intuitions are not magic' (by Kaj_Sotala, 10 June 2010 at 12:11AM). It has a 98% positive rating and is apparently a basic article aimed at newbie readers, so it seems as good a place to start as any.
The article begins with a warning against the misuse of statistics. There's an explanation of Pearson's correlation coefficient, and an example of how it might be misleading if misapplied. Kaj then introduces the general principle that using one tool for every job will not always produce the right results.
We then get an explanation of how we make assumptions, correct and incorrect, about the world, with links to supporting studies. Although this article is presented as introductory, it clearly wasn't one of the first to be written, since there are a number of references to prior articles.
The general argument here is that sometimes we rely on our intuitions even when they run counter to mathematical and scientific information, with the conclusion that we should pay attention to the cognitive sciences and question our own mental processes. So far, so sensible; there's nothing here that strikes me as particularly surprising or controversial. I can see how maybe this line of reasoning might be intended to open the reader's mind to more outlandish claims, but at this point it all sounds pretty harmless. The authorial voice sounds informed and scientific, so I can see how this would appeal to new readers interested in rationality and refining their own mental processes.
Gonna stop here for now. More whenever I feel like it.
A note of caution - for those who aren't aware, some of the content of LW is decidedly un-PC, and some Lesswrongians are downright bigoted. As far as I'm aware, Yudkowsky himself isn't too bad; still, I'll do my best to give fair warning if the content of the site approaches racist, sexist or otherwise hateful territory.
On a related note, I realize this kind of thread has the potential to become a mock thread very quickly. I'm going to resist that temptation, and because I don't want this thread to get prematurely shut down, I ask that you please do the same. If the stuff I'm reading is stupid, I'm not going to hesitate to say so, but I will try not to be cruel and will give the Lesswrongians' arguments a fair listen. If any mods or admins think I'm out of line please let me know.
1. Home, About and 'Your intuitions are not magic'
Alright, so, first impressions: the first thing you see when arriving on the site is a picture of a person's head. It looks kind of like those old psychology diagrams where they label what part of the brain is responsible for what. The nose contains the words 'Less Wrong is:' and the brain informs us that it is 'A curated group blog', 'A community discussion board', 'A source of edited rationality materials' '...And a promoter of regular meetups around the world.' I'm not sure what to click first, so let's check out their about page, which is linked at the top of the page.This reads kind of like an advertisement for the site. 'Interested in improving your reasoning and decision-making skills?' Why, yes, I am. Let's see what you have to offer, Less Wrong. Helpfully, they provide a list of articles to get newbie Lesswrongians started. Amusingly, the page also contains a warning that the community uses extensive jargon (they recommend using their wiki to understand it) and that users of the site 'don't automatically reject... and sometimes endorse' ideas which they term odd, such as transhumanism, cryonics and what they euphemistically call 'caution regarding AI research'.
There's information about IRL meetups, an FAQ, and information on how to contribute to the site. They also assert that 'blog archives can make for better reading than books'. We shall see about that.
At this point I must say I'm already a little confused - specifically about the name of the site. Is it LessWrong or Less Wrong? The logo at the top of every page says the former, but otherwise they seem to prefer the latter.
The first linked article is entitled 'Your intuitions are not magic' (by Kaj_Sotala, 10 June 2010 at 12:11AM). It has a 98% positive rating and is apparently a basic article aimed at newbie readers, so it seems as good a place to start as any.
The article begins with a warning against the misuse of statistics. There's an explanation of Pearson's correlation coefficient, and an example of how it might be misleading if misapplied. Kaj then introduces the general principle that using one tool for every job will not always produce the right results.
Of course, assuming that makes about as much sense as assuming that your hammer is magical and can be used to repair anything. Even if you had a broken window, you could fix that by hitting it with your magic hammer.
We then get an explanation of how we make assumptions, correct and incorrect, about the world, with links to supporting studies. Although this article is presented as introductory, it clearly wasn't one of the first to be written, since there are a number of references to prior articles.
The general argument here is that sometimes we rely on our intuitions even when they run counter to mathematical and scientific information, with the conclusion that we should pay attention to the cognitive sciences and question our own mental processes. So far, so sensible; there's nothing here that strikes me as particularly surprising or controversial. I can see how maybe this line of reasoning might be intended to open the reader's mind to more outlandish claims, but at this point it all sounds pretty harmless. The authorial voice sounds informed and scientific, so I can see how this would appeal to new readers interested in rationality and refining their own mental processes.
Gonna stop here for now. More whenever I feel like it.
Tagged:
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
About how he starts with his conclusion first, and then sets about finding evidence in support of it.
They generally gave the impression of being intelligent and reasonable people, but I found them difficult to argue with because sometimes they would dismiss something which I thought was reasonable, and they couldn't explain why without reference to confusing terminology or linking one of Yudkowsky's sequences, which frustrated me.
So perhaps there is forward motion.
^ I've heard a lot about Slate Star Codex of late. I'm curious, I must say, but not all that I've heard has been good.
Quite honestly, I can relate to that third paragraph. It's remarkably similar to the reasons I used to feel so comfortable in OTC.
HAVE YOU READ THE SEQUENCES
Heh. But no, not yet. This is a busy week for me, although I should like to get to the sequences soon.
That kind of silencing of dissent is hardly exclusive to liberal communities, is it? But it depends what is meant by 'conservatives' here. Bigots are a special case, since by posting they silence minorities. Many conservatives would be equally uncomfortable around such people.
Yes, I had gotten the impression that this was something closer associated with older internet communities... I feel it kind of died, for the most part, once the Internet became less insular and no longer a niche thing. It's having to adjust to the influx of the values of wider society now, which tend to be given precedent over the established values of the Internet community in question. Look at the way Something Awful has changed over the years.
The present day liberal owes at least as much to Marx as to the Enlightenment, and more to the modern media and education system than either of those.
Setting that aside, I don't see the sense in positing a never-ending list of groups-which-are-not-to-be-discriminated-against. The progressive stance is quite simply that everyone should be respected for who they are, and nobody should be considered a lesser human being due to facts of their appearance or their culture of origin, which are outside their control and which are, in any case, a terrible reason to treat someone badly.
It is true that traditional Islam is in opposition to most of the values espoused by liberals, but that doesn't mean Muslims should be subject to racial or religious hatred. I don't see how this is a difficult concept.
My response to you here is basically the same as my response to him there: there is no contradiction in criticizing aspects of a culture which are morally damaging, while nevertheless supporting the right of that culture to exist as a culture distinct from our own (which also contains morally damaging aspects which should be condemned on the same grounds).
And also supporting the rights of people of ethnicities associated with that culture to exist in our society unmolested, which tends not to happen when our society deems religious discrimination acceptable.
If this line of discussion is making people uncomfortable, then I suppose yes, we should return to discussion of LessWrong.
Of course, in doing so we're doing exactly what Mr Darcy just complained about, but I suppose that may have been a tactical complaint on his part.
Also he wrote a five billion page FAQ on why Moldbug makes no sense at any level, which is cool.
I'm getting the sense that this line of discussion is unwelcome here, and that it would perhaps be better if we were to discontinue it.
*shrug*