trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Less Wrong’s political bias 
by Sophronius — 2013-10-25T16:38:53.384Z

(Disclaimer: This post refers to a certain political party as being somewhat crazy, which got some people upset, so sorry about that. That is not what this post is *about*, however. The article is instead about Less Wrong's social norms against pointing certain things out. I have edited it a bit to try and make it less provocative.)

A well-known post around these parts is Yudkowski’s “politics is the mind killer”. This article proffers an important point: People tend to go funny in the head when discussing politics, as politics is largely about signalling tribal affiliation. The conclusion drawn from this by the Less Wrong crowd seems simple: Don’t discuss political issues, or at least keep it as fair and balanced as possible when you do. However, I feel that there is a very real downside to treating political issues in this way, which I shall try to explain here. Since this post is (indirectly) about politics, I will try to bring this as gently as possible so as to avoid mind-kill. As a result this post is a bit lengthier than I would like it to be, so I apologize for that in advance.

I find that a good way to examine the value of a policy is to ask in which of all possible worlds this policy would work, and in which worlds it would not. So let’s start by imagining a perfectly convenient world: In a universe whose politics are entirely reasonable and fair, people start political parties to represent certain interests and preferences. For example, you might have the kitten party for people who like kittens, and the puppy party for people who favour puppies. In this world Less Wrong’s unofficial policy is entirely reasonable: There is no sense in discussing politics, since politics is only about personal preferences, and any discussion of this can only lead to a “Jay kittens, boo dogs!” emotivism contest. At best you can do a poll now and again to see what people currently favour.

Now let’s imagine a less reasonable world, where things don’t have to happen for good reasons and the universe doesn’t give a crap about what’s fair. In this unreasonable world, y

...
New LW Meetup: Cologne (Köln)
by FrankAdamek — 2013-10-25T16:10:18.306Z

This summary was posted to LW main on October 18th. The following week's summary is here.

New meetups (or meetups with a hiatus of more than a year) are happening in:

First Meetup in Cologne (Köln): 27 October 2013 04:00PM

Other irregularly scheduled Less Wrong meetups are taking place in:

Atlanta October Meetup (Second of Two): 19 October 2013 06:00PM
Atlanta: Rationalist Movie Night!: 26 October 2013 07:00PM
Berlin: Fermi paradox discussion: 18 October 2013 07:00PM
Bristol meetup: 20 October 2013 02:00PM
Frankfurt (including effective altruism presentation): 27 October 2013 02:00PM
Helsinki Meetup: 20 October 2013 03:00PM
Moscow, weekday gathering: 21 October 2013 07:00PM
Phoenix (Tempe) Less Wrong Meetup: 18 October 2013 02:00PM
Saint Petersburg, Russia: 27 October 2013 04:00PM
Urbana-Champaign: Decision Theory: 20 October 2013 02:00PM

The remaining meetups take place in cities with regular scheduling, but involve a change in time or location, special meeting content, or simply a helpful reminder about the meetup:

Austin, TX: 19 October 2019 01:30PM
[Cambridge MA] LW/Methods of Rationality meetup (Yudkowsky attending): 18 October 2013 07:00PM
[Cambridge MA] LW meetup: Polyphasic sleep: 20 October 2013 02:00PM
Durham/RTLW HPMoR discussion, ch. 90-93: 19 October 2013 12:00PM
[Melbourne] Sunday Brunch Club - Sunday 20th October: 20 October 2013 07:08PM
Washington DC: Jobs/project show and tell : 20 October 2013 03:00PM

Locations with regularly scheduled meetups: Austin, Berkeley, Cambridge, MA, Cambridge UK, Columbus, London, Madison WI, Melbourne, Mountain View, New York, Philadelphia, Research Triangle NC, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Toronto, Vienna, Washington DC, Waterloo, and West Los Angeles. There's also a 24/7 online study hall for coworking LWers.

If you'd like to talk with other LW-ers face to face, and there is no meetup in your area, consider starting your own meetup; it's easy (more resources here). Check one out, stretch your rationality skills, build community, and have fun!

In addition to the handy sidebar of upcoming meetups, a meetup overview will continue to be posted on the front page every Friday. These will be an attempt to collect information on all the meetups happening in the next weeks. The best way to get your meetup featured is still to use the Add New Meetup feature, but ...
Link dump: Future of Humanity institute technical reports
by Stuart_Armstrong — 2013-10-25T16:07:50.493Z

For those who may be interested in these things, here are the links to all the FHI's technical reports.

Global Catastrophic Risks Survey: At the Global Catastrophic Risk Conference in Oxford (17‐20 July, 2008) an informal survey was circulated among participants, asking them to make their best guess at the chance that there will be disasters of different types before 2100. This report summarizes the main results.

Record of the Workshop on Policy Foresight and Global Catastrophic Risks: On 21 July 2008, the Policy Foresight Programme, in conjunction with the Future of Humanity Institute, hosted a day-long workshop on “Policy Foresight and Global Catastrophic Risks” at the James Martin 21st Century School at the University of Oxford. This document provides a record of the day’s discussion.

Whole Brain Emulation: a Roadmap: This report aims at providing a preliminary roadmap for Whole Brain Emulations (possible future one‐to‐one modelling of the function of the human brain), sketching out key technologies that would need to be developed or refined, and identifying key problems or uncertainties.

Utility Indifference: A utility-function-based method for making an Artificial Intelligence indifferent to certain facts or states of the world, which can be used to make certain security precautions more successful.

Machine Intelligence Survey: At the FHI Winter Intelligence conference on machine intelligence 16/1 2011 an informal poll was conducted to elicit the views of the participants on various questions related to the emergence of machine intelligence. This report summarizes the results.

Indefinite Survival through Backup Copies: Continually copying yourself may help you preserve yourself from destruction. As long as the copies fate is independent, increasing the number of copies at a logarithmic rate is enough to ensure a non-zero probability of surviving for ever. The model is of more general use for many similar processes.

Anthropics: why Probability isn’t enough: This report argues that the current treatment of anthropic and self-locating problems over-emphasises the importance of anthropic probabilities, and ignores other relevant and important factors, such as whether the various copies of the agents in question consider that they are acting in a linked fashion and whether they are mutually altruistic towards each other. These help to reinte...
[Link] Cognitive biases about violence as a negotiating tactic
by chaosmage — 2013-10-25T11:43:09.909Z

Max Abrahms, "The Credibility Paradox: Violence as a Double-Edged Sword in International Politics," International Studies Quarterly 2013.

Abstract: Implicit in the rationalist literature on bargaining over the last half-century is the political utility of violence. Given our anarchical international system populated with egoistic actors, violence is thought to promote concessions by lending credibility to their threats. From the vantage of bargaining theory, then, empirical research on terrorism poses a puzzle. For non-state actors, terrorism signals a credible threat in comparison to less extreme tactical alternatives. In recent years, however, a spate of studies across disciplines and methodologies has nonetheless found that neither escalating to terrorism nor with terrorism encourages government concessions. In fact, perpetrating terrorist acts reportedly lowers the likelihood of government compliance, particularly as the civilian casualties rise. The apparent tendency for this extreme form of violence to impede concessions challenges the external validity of bargaining theory, as traditionally understood. In this study, I propose and test an important psychological refinement to the standard rationalist narrative. Via an experiment on a national sample of adults, I find evidence of a newfound cognitive heuristic undermining the coercive logic of escalation enshrined in bargaining theory. Due to this oversight, mainstream bargaining theory overestimates the political utility of violence, particularly as an instrument of coercion.

I found this via Bruce Schneier's blog, which frequently features very valuable analysis clustered around societal and computer security.
What should normal people do?
by seez — 2013-10-25T02:28:50.885Z

What should a not-very-smart person do? Suppose you know a not-very-smart person (around or below average intelligence). S/he read about rationality, has utilitarian inclinations, and wants to make the world better. However, s/he isn't smart enough to discover new knowledge in most fields, or contribute very much to a conversation of more knowledgeable experts on a given topic. Let's assume s/he has no exceptional talents in any area.

How do you think a person like that could best use his/her time and energy? What would you tell the person to do? This person may be, compared to average LW readership, less capable of noticing the irrationality in his/her actions even if s/he wants to be rid of it, and less easily able to notice the flaws in a bad argument. S/he may never be able to deeply understand why certain arguments are correct, certain scientific facts have to be the way they are, and telling him/her to be unsure or sure about anything seems dangerous if s/he doesn't really understand why.

My practical advice might be:

1) If you want to give to charity, follow GiveWell recommendations.

2) Learn about the basic biases, and commit to resisting them in your own life.

3) Follow advice that has been tested, that correctly predicts a positive outcome. If a hypothesis is untestable (there's an unsensible dragon in your garage) or doesn't predict anything (fire comes from phlogiston in combustable substances), or is tested and demonstrably false (god will smite you if you say it doesn't exist), don't waste time and energy on it. If you want to improve, look for tested methods that have significant positive results relevant to the area of interest. Similarly, if a person regularly gives you advice that does not lead to good outcomes, stop following it, and if someone gives advice that leads to good outcomes, start paying attention even if you like that person less.

At a more general level, my thoughts are tentative, but might include basic LW tenets such as:

1) Don't be afraid of the truth, because you're already enduring it.

2) If all the experts in a field agree on something, they might be wrong, but you are extremely unlikely to be better at uncovering the truth, so follow their advice, which might appear to conflict with...

3) Don't trust deep wisdom. Use Occam's ...
Meetup : Urbana-Champaign: Dark Arts Meetup Sunday October 27, Illini Union Courtyard Cafe (Ground Floor), 2PM
by Mestroyer — 2013-10-25T00:24:49.147Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Urbana-Champaign: Dark Arts Meetup Sunday October 27, Illini Union Courtyard Cafe (Ground Floor), 2PM

WHEN:
27 October 2013 02:00:00PM (-0500)

WHERE:
40.109549, -88.227200

What tricks do marketers, politicians, and others use to exploit human biases, and how can we counter them?
Things we might talk about include (but are not limited to):
anchoring
cognitive ease
differentiation and distinctiveness
appearance heuristics
social heuristics
systems 1 and 2

Moving meetups inside because it's getting cold out.
Coordinates are +40° 6' 34.38", -88° 13' 37.92"

Cross posted on the mailing list

Discussion article for the meetup : Urbana-Champaign: Dark Arts Meetup Sunday October 27, Illini Union Courtyard Cafe (Ground Floor), 2PM
Meetup : Tempe, AZ: How to Measure Anything I
by Jayson_Virissimo — 2013-10-24T19:36:50.073Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Tempe, AZ: How to Measure Anything I

WHEN:
25 October 2013 02:00:32PM (-0700)

WHERE:
300 E Orange Mall, Tempe, AZ

As usual, we are meeting at the entrance to Hayden Library. This week, we will play a round of Zendo and discuss Section I of How to Measure Anything (Section I includes chapter 1-3). See here for a very "strong" review from lukeprog.

Discussion article for the meetup : Tempe, AZ: How to Measure Anything I
[link] The World's Most Powerful MRI Takes Shape
by moreati — 2013-10-23T20:42:55.334Z

http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/imaging/the-worlds-most-powerful-mri-takes-shape

Standard hospital scanners have a spatial resolution of about 1 millimeter, covering about 10 000 neurons, and a time resolution of about a second. The INUMAC will be able to image an area of about 0.1 mm, or 1000 neurons, and see changes occurring as fast as one-tenth of a second, according to Pierre Védrine, director of the project at the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission, in Paris
Meetup : Durham NC/Triangle Area Meetup:  Goal Factoring
by therufs — 2013-10-23T19:30:40.188Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Durham NC/Triangle Area Meetup: Goal Factoring

WHEN:
24 October 2013 07:00:00PM (-0400)

WHERE:
2411 N Roxboro St., Durham NC 27704

Can we discover values, drives, and emotions we didn't know we possessed, by a process like Goal Factoring? Let's find out, tomorrow!

7:00 gather

7:30 discussion

9:30ish unstructured social time, either at the house or possibly at Fullsteam

We suggest parking on Ellerbee, one block north of Club. Our house is green with a red door, and will have its porch light on.

Hope to see you there!

Discussion article for the meetup : Durham NC/Triangle Area Meetup: Goal Factoring
Meetup : Saskatoon - Rhetorical Fallacies!
by Nicholas_Rutherford — 2013-10-23T18:15:05.790Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Saskatoon - Rhetorical Fallacies!

WHEN:
26 October 2013 01:00:00PM (-0600)

WHERE:
2318 8th St E, Saskatoon, SK

Another Saskatoon meetup at the same place and time as the last one: Broadway Roaster on 8th street (not on broadway!) at 1:00 in the afternoon.

We'll be learning about 7 common rhetorical fallacies, why they are wrong and how to identify them. This is going to be based off of the rhetorical fallacy lesson from clearerthinking.org. I'd suggest going through it. It is free, takes about 45 minutes and you can see if you beat my score of 35 points!

More info here: http://www.meetup.com/Saskatoon-Rationalists/

Hope to see you there!

Discussion article for the meetup : Saskatoon - Rhetorical Fallacies!
Confusion about science and technology
by NancyLebovitz — 2013-10-23T12:27:55.524Z

Science is not particularly reliable.

And yet, we have remarkable technology, and can do medical marvels.

My tentative theory is that there's a lot of knowledge that's less formal than science in engineering, manufacturing, and the practice of medicine which makes it possible to get work done, and some fairly effective methods of filtering information that comes from science.
Review of studies says you can decrease motivated cognition through self-affirmation
by Nick_Beckstead — 2013-10-23T11:43:49.300Z

I read this article today and thought LW might find it interesting. The key finding is that in a number of different experiments, simple "self-affirmations" (such as writing about relationships with your friends or something else that makes you feel good about yourself) make people more open to changing their mind in cases where changing their mind would be damaging to their self-image. The proposed explanation is that people need to maintain a certain level of self-worth, and one way they do that is by refusing to accept evidence that would damage their sense of self-worth. But if they have a high enough sense of self-worth, they are less likely to do this. I haven't reviewed any of these studies personally, but the idea makes some sense and sounds pretty easy to try. Hat tip to Dan Keys for putting me onto the idea. I searched LW for "Sherman self-affirmation" and didn't see this discussed anywhere on LW, but I didn't look very hard.

Title: Accepting Threatening Information: Self–Affirmation and the Reduction of Defensive Biases

Authors: David K. Sherman and Geoffrey L. Cohen

Citation details: Current Directions in Psychological Science August 2002 vol. 11 no. 4 119-123

Abstract: Why do people resist evidence that challenges the validity of long–held beliefs? And why do they persist in maladaptive behavior even when persuasive information or personal experience recommends change? We argue that such defensive tendencies are driven, in large part, by a fundamental motivation to protect the perceived worth and integrity of the self. Studies of social–political debate, health–risk assessment, and responses to team victory or defeat have shown that people respond to information in a less defensive and more open–minded manner when their self–worth is buttressed by an affirmation of an alternative source of identity. Self–affirmed individuals are more likely to accept information that they would otherwise view as threatening, and subsequently to change their beliefs and even their behavior in a desirable fashion. Defensive biases have an adaptive function for maintaining self–worth, but maladaptive consequences for promoting change and reducing social conflict.

Key quotes: "Pro-choice partisans and pro-life partisans were presented with a debate between two activists on opposite sides of the abortion dispute&he...
The Center For Open Science makes $1.3mm available to validate 50 cancer studies. 
by Curiouskid — 2013-10-23T03:32:42.338Z

Yesterday, they announced that The Center For Open Science was making $1.3mm available, via ScienceExchange, to reproduce and validate 50 important cancer biology studies.

I am excited about this for a bunch of reasons; 1) reproducing and validating research is critical, 2) The Center For Open Science is taking a marketplace model to funding this work, and 3) it points to the broader potential for Science Exchange to break down silos, open up research, and lead to better and faster scientific discovery.

http://www.businessinsider.com/open-science-2013-10
Meetup : London Social Meetup (and AskMeAnything about the CFAR workshop)
by kerspoon — 2013-10-22T16:01:55.279Z

Discussion article for the meetup : London Social Meetup (and AskMeAnything about the CFAR workshop)

WHEN:
27 October 2013 02:00:00PM (+0100)

WHERE:
Shakespears's Head, Africa House, 64-68 Kingsway, London WC2B 6BG, UK

LessWrong London are having another awesome meetup and we would love for you to come!
This one will mostly be a social chat but I have just returned from a very interesting week in San Francisco where I went to a CFAR workshop (rationalist training camp) and stayed at Leverage Research (a load of people living together and trying to improve the world). Because of that I thought people might want to know all the exciting things they have told me. The plan is to meet at The Shakespeare Inn, 200m from Holborn Underground at 2pm on Sunday 27th . We will officially finish at 4pm but honestly people tend to enjoy it so much they want to stay much longer, and regularly do. We will have a sign with the LessWrong logo on it so you can find us easily.
If you have any questions, or are thinking of coming, feel free to email me (james) at kerspoon+lw@gmail.com. Otherwise, just turn up!
Hope to see you there,
James
P.S err on the side of turning-up, we're friendly, and it's fun :)

Discussion article for the meetup : London Social Meetup (and AskMeAnything about the CFAR workshop)
[LINK] What Can Internet Ads Teach Us About Persuasion?
by JQuinton — 2013-10-22T15:31:55.951Z

How "one weird trick" conquered the Internet. Some excerpt I found interesting:

Research on persuasion shows the more arguments you list in favor of something, regardless of the quality of those arguments, the more that people tend to believe it,” Norton says. “Mainstream ads sometimes use long lists of bullet points—people don’t read them, but it’s persuasive to know there are so many reasons to buy.” OK, but if more is better, then why only one trick? “People want a simple solution that has a ton of support.”

I actually see this technique used in a lot of religious apologetics. There's even a name for one of them: The Gish Gallop. Would it be fair to say that this technique is taking advantage of a naive or intuitive understanding of Bayesian updates?

What about all the weirdness? “A word like ‘weird’ is not so negative, and kind of intriguing,” says Oleg Urminsky of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. “There’s this foot-in-the-door model. If you lead with a strong, unbelievable claim it may turn people off. But if you start with ‘isn’t this kind of weird?’ it lowers the stakes.” The model also explains why some ads ask you to click on your age first. “Giving your age is low-stakes but it begins the dialogue. The hard sell comes later.”

The "click on your age" first gambit seems a bit like Cached Selves.

“People tend to think something is important if it’s secret,” says Michael Norton, a marketing professor at Harvard Business School. “Studies find that we give greater credence to information if we’ve been told it was once ‘classified.’ Ads like this often purport to be the work of one man, telling you something ‘they’ don’t want you to know.” The knocks on Big Pharma not only offered a tempting needle-free fantasy; they also had a whiff of secret knowledge, bolstering the ad’s credibility

Humanity's love affair with secrecy and its importance seems to go back quite a bit. The world's largest religion seems to have started out as one of many mystery religions in the Greco-Roman world at the time.