trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
The bias shield
by PhilGoetz — 2011-12-31T17:44:54.125Z

A friend asked me to get her Bill O'Reilly's new book Killing Lincoln for Christmas. I read its reviews on Amazon, and found several that said it wasn't as good as another book about the assassination, Blood on the Moon. This seemed like a believable conclusion to me. Killing Lincoln has no footnotes to document any of its claims, and is not in the Ford's Theatre national park service bookstore because the NPS decided it was too historically inaccurate to sell. Nearly 200 books have been written about the Lincoln assassination, including some by professional Lincoln scholars. So the odds seemed good that at least one of these was better than a book written by a TV talk show host.

But I was wrong. To many people, this was not a believable conclusion.

(This is not about the irrationality of Fox network fans. They are just a useful case study.)

One review ended like this:

I hope people are not writing off an honest review because they think I'm picking on O'Reilly. The only POSSIBLE reason that this book took off so fast on the bestseller lists is because it was publicized on the O'Reilly Factor, not because it was so much better than any of the other books written about the Lincoln assassination. There has been much back-and-forth about this for some time. Dishonest people who didn't read the book but hate O'Reilly gave it one-star reviews without ever opening it. O'Reilly fans have an attack of the vapors at anything less than a five-star review. The purpose of this review was to inform, not to express ideology. I stand by this review. If you don't like it, that's fine, but don't attack me simply because you're sticking up for Bill O'Reilly (a futile wish, apparently). Again -- I watch The O'Reilly Factor. I am also a Lincoln scholar. Take this review at face value.

And Amazon readers responded:

Ted says: My guess is that your review is based on the same thing as every other liberal here... partisan hatred and the huffington post.

Robes says: More time was spent by Mr. Ford going after O'Reilly than reviewing the merits of the content of the book itself. Smacks of a political agenda by Mr. Ford. Best to leave serious reviews to the pro's.

(There was a further exchange where the reviewer gave his conservative credentials by saying he had worked for Sarah Palin, and readers responded by calling him a liar,...
[wild nonsense] How about marketing rationality along the lines of "Feeling Rational"?
by Multiheaded — 2011-12-31T15:27:01.797Z

An excellent piece. I just saw it again, after skimming through the sequences once more today, having nothing better to do on New Year's Eve, and had a thought. What if Less Wrong could do a... mildly cultish thing and, when preaching rationality to random technically inclined folks, start not from its utility, beauty and necessity, but from its ability to make oneself *truer?*

Appeal to idealism, or, as the correct term here goes, to terminal values! If an ape desires to be an angel and, seeing no way to become one but many ways to make the pain bearable, abuses all kinds of opium for the masses, don't just come on to him like a boring ol' rehab worker when you can start the conversation by promising him actual grafted wings, and explain how it's in his interest to at least survive while they're being tested - oh, and take some theoretical flight lessons. Imagine if LW was disguised as a transhumanist propaganda resource first and foremost. It could ignite people's imagination with quality fiction and passionate calls to arms... then explain that there's only one way, twisting and narrow, way forward, and you need St. Bayes to hold your hand even if you want to make the first step.

You stumble in here, and are made to envision and clarify your core values, to become more aware of your actual highest desires - the ones that most ordinary people are probably ashamed to even display: they will likely involve ending all misery, grasping for the stars, casting off the shackles of biology, growing up in the best way possible. And *then* you're shown the path, step by step, to the launch pad where the ships are being built, so you can, too, contribute. Couldn't this get a certain subset of people - like some science fiction fans - seriously motivated?

Yeah, I'm just a little high on cough syrup. Is this incoherent?

tl;dr: what if We The LW had a full transhumanist side to us, as a source of cohesion and inspiration.
Why some people seem to be proud of their ignorance?
by uzalud — 2011-12-31T13:38:19.077Z

Sometimes I run into people that have rather strong opinions on some topic, and it turns out that they are basing them on quite shallow and biased information. They are aware that their knowledge is quite limited compared to mine, and they admit that they don't want to put in the effort needed to learn enough to level the field.

But that's not really a problem. What is bothering me is that, sometimes, that declaration of ignorance is expressed with some kind of pride.

This behaviour is noticeable on other levels too, in politics or in the sciences-humanities culture clash.

I came up with several hypotheses which might account for this:

Being opinionated on a topic you know little about is a sign of confidence and bravery. Any fool can play it safe and carefully form opinions based on solid knowledge, but it takes a real man to do it quickly and decidedly, with only partial information.

Knowing something is an identity badge. In-depth knowledge of science, or computers, or any number of other fields is a sign that you are a geek. People are proud of not being geeks, or are a proud member of some other group that does not care for that particular knowledge.

Knowledge is relative and/or unimportant. Not caring about concrete knowledge is a sign of post-modernist sophistication, or an avant-garde, non-mainstream thinking, which is something to be proud of.

Displaying pride overcompensates for shame one normally feels when forced to acknowledge one's ignorance.

Do you notice this behaviour too? What do you think causes it?

EDIT: formatting, style, grammar
[SEQ RERUN] The "Intuitions" Behind "Utilitarianism"
by MinibearRex — 2011-12-31T06:09:44.928Z

Today's post, The "Intuitions" Behind "Utilitarianism" was originally published on 28 January 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

Our intuitions, the underlying cognitive tricks that we use to build our thoughts, are an indespensible part of our cognition. The problem is that many of those intuitions are incoherent, or are undesirable upon reflection. But if you try to "renormalize" your intuition, you wind up with what is essentially utilitarianism.

Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Circular Altruism, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.
[LINK] "Prediction Audits" for Nate Silver, Dave Weigel
by orthonormal — 2011-12-30T21:07:50.916Z

Nate Silver (the NYT quantitative political analyst) and Dave Weigel (the Slate columnist) have started a good tradition, listing their worst predictions of 2011. (Silver also listed his best.)

If any other pundits are doing the same, link them here.
Last chance to donate for 2011
by multifoliaterose — 2011-12-30T18:25:19.455Z

Many LW readers choose to direct their charitable donations to SingInst with a view toward reducing existential risk. Others do not, whether because they feel they lack an understanding of the relevant issues, because they value present day humans more than future humans or because they have concern as to the incentive effects that would be created by donating to SingInst at present. I personally feel that there's a strong case for saving money to donate later on account of better information being available in the future.

However, I feel cognitive dissonance attached to saving to donate later rather than now. If you are in this camp you might consider donating to GiveWell's top ranked charities. Also note that spreading the word about GiveWell promotes a culture of effective philanthropy which is likely to have spin off effect of interesting people in x-risk reduction, reducing x-risk.

See Holden's article on last minute donations http://blog.givewell.org/2011/12/30/last-minute-donations/ :

"Of the money moved to our top charities through our website in 2010, 25% was on December 31st alone. We know that lots of people will be looking to make last-minute donations.

If you only have five minutes but you want to take advantage of the thousands of hours of work we put into finding the best giving opportunities, consider giving to our top charities. They have strong track records, accomplish a lot of good per dollar spent, and have good concrete plans for how to use additional donations.

A couple of things to keep in mind:

After you give, spread the word. This is the perfect time to remind people (via Facebook sharing, tweeting, etc.) to give before the year ends. And people making last-minute gifts are likely to be receptive to suggestions.

If you have any questions, we’re here to help. We should be available by phone for most of the day, and responding to email when we’re not. (See our contact page). Our research FAQ may also be a good resource."
[RESEARCH] Marijuana may prevent Alzheimer's disease
by  — 2011-12-30T16:23:34.614Z

In a post last August called Alzheimer's vs. Cryonics, I left the following comment:

23andMe recently showed that people of my genotype are more than twice as likely to develop Alzheimer's as others in my ethnic group. I have a 15% chance of getting Alzheimer's before I'm 80, up from 7%. See Patri's post about this.

An initial Googling has generated things like 'eat paleo', 'get caffeine', 'exercise', and 'use your brain'. I'm planning to do further research about decreasing Alzheimer's risk.

I really recommend that everyone do 23andMe for this precise reason.

wedrifid made an insightful response:

I wonder, how much does that single bit of information (doubling the chance) matter to those decisions? Should you have been doing those things anyway, for the Alzheimer's prevention and the other benefits? Is it the motivational factor of the formal personal certification that is important or the actual information?

wedrifid nailed it. Transhumanists have a huge interest in making the necessary lifestyle adjustments to prevent Alzheimer's. Even if cryonics were certain to work, I'd like it to be me that is resurrected when the technology is available, and I won't still be me if Alzheimer's gets its way.

So I've been keeping an eye out for relevant information. I haven't done rigorous research yet, but a friend recently sent me a study: "A molecular link between the active component of marijuana and Alzheimer's disease pathology." I've uploaded the full text of the article here.

A sample from the abstract:

Here, we demonstrate that the active component of marijuana, Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), competitively inhibits the enzyme acetylcholinesterase (AChE) as well as prevents AChE-induced amyloid beta-peptide (Abeta) aggregation, the key pathological marker of Alzheimer's disease. [...] Compared to currently approved drugs prescribed for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease, THC is a considerably superior inhibitor of Abeta aggregation, and this study provides a previously unrecognized molecular mechanism through which cannabinoid molecules may directly impact the progression of this debilitating disease.

From the conclusion:

It is noteworthy that THC is a considerably more effective inhibitor of AChE-induced [Abeta] deposition than the approved drugs for Alzheimer’s disease treatment, donepezil a

...
Weekly LW Meetups
by FrankAdamek — 2011-12-30T15:07:44.084Z

There are no LW meetups posted for THIS week, but...

There are upcoming irregularly scheduled Less Wrong meetups in:

Fort Collins, Colorado Meetup: 04 January 2012 07:00PM
Salt Lake City, Late January 2012
Columbus or Cincinnati Meetup: 21 January 2012 08:34PM
First Brussels meetup: 18 February 2012 11:00AM

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

Melbourne practical rationality meetup: 06 January 2012 07:00AM

The Mountain View meetup is taking a hiatus for the rest of December, see the mailing list for details.

Cities with regularly scheduled meetups: Austin, Berkeley, Cambridge, MA, Irvine, London, Madison, WI, Marin, CA (uses the Bay Area List), Melbourne, Mountain View, New York, Ottawa, Oxford, San Francisco, Seattle, Toronto, Washington, DC, and West Los Angeles.

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, 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 you'll now also have the benefit of having your meetup mentioned in a weekly overview. These overview posts will be moved to the discussion section when the new post goes up.

Please note that for your meetup to appear in the weekly meetups feature, you need to post your meetup before the Friday before your meetup!

If you check Less Wrong irregularly, consider subscribing to one or more city-specific mailing list in order to be notified when an irregular meetup is happening: Atlanta, Chicago, Helsinki, London, Pittsburgh, Southern California (Los Angeles/Orange County area), St. Louis, Vancouver.
I'd like to talk to some LGBT LWers.
by Solvent — 2011-12-30T10:39:10.249Z

When _ozymandias posted zir introduction post a few days ago, I went off and binged on blogs from the trans/men's rights/feminist spectrum. I found them absolutely fascinating. I've always had lots of sympathy for transgendered people in particular, and care a lot about all those issues. I don't know what I think of making up new pronouns, and I get a bit offput by trying to remember the non-offensive terms for everything. For example, I'm sure that LGBT as a term offends people, and I agree that lumping the T with the LGB is a bit dubious, but I don't know any other equivalent term that everyone will understand. I'm going to keep using it.

However, I don't currently know any LGBT people who I can talk to about these things. In particular, the whole LGBT and feminist and so on community seems to be prone to taking unnecessary offense, and believing in subjectivism and silly things like that.

So I'd really like to talk with some LWers who have experience with these things. I've got questions that I think would be better answered by an IM conversation than by just reading blogs.

If anyone wants to have an IM conversation about this, please message me. I'd be very grateful.

EDIT: Wow, that's an amazing response. Thank you all for your kind offers. I'll talk to as many of you as I can get around to.
What are good apps for rationalists?
by dekelron — 2011-12-30T08:54:19.642Z

The smartphone world is relatively new, so I suspect there are amazing (yet sometimes unknown) apps that can help various aspects of our lives. I cannot think of a better discussion place for this topic. So,

Which app help you optimize life?

Is there an app you keep searching for in vain? (though it might exist!)

For me (I was searching for both apps for months!! until they were finally created):

Anki, A flashcard memorization app with many useful features.

[From the link] Anki is a program which makes remembering things easy. Because it is a lot more efficient than traditional study methods, you can either greatly decrease your time spent studying, or greatly increase the amount you learn.
Anyone who needs to remember things in their daily life can benefit from Anki. Since it is content-agnostic and supports images, audio, videos and scientific markup (via LaTeX), the possibilities are endless.

Simple Counter Widget, A counter widget. Sounds simple, but it's amazingly helpful.
I use it as a tool to better myself. Every time I eat my gum (an annoying mostly unconscious habit), the gum-eating-widget is increased by one. Because the widget is so accessible, I rarely cheat. This gives the habit immediate negative feedback, and allows me to check improvement over time. (Also my desktop looks cool, with many intriguing numbers popping from everywhere)

(less interesting: Record Mic and Call - which includes a useful recording widget, and Waze - which is amazing but well known GPS app (at least here))

please share to make this interesting :)
The Value (and Danger) of Ritual
by Raemon — 2011-12-30T06:52:09.685Z

This is the second part of my Winter Solstice Ritual mini-sequence. The introduction post is here.

-

Ritual is an interesting phenomenon to me. It can be fun, beautiful, profound, useful... and potentially dangerous.

Commenters from the previous article fell into two main camps - those who assumed I knew what I was doing and gave me the benefit of the doubt, and those who were afraid I was naively meddling with forces beyond my comprehension. This was a reasonable fear. In this article, I’ll outline why I think ritual is important, why it’s dangerous, why I think it's relevant to an aspiring rationalist culture.

Before I start arguing how meaningful and transformative ritual can be, I want to argue something simpler:

It can be really fun.

This is not to be discounted. For whatever reason, humans tend to appreciate songs, stories and activities that they shared with their tribe. Hedons from ritual can take the form of fun joviality as well as intense, profound experiences.

Not everything we evolved to do is good. If we feel an urge to hit the enemy tribesman with a huge rock and take their land, we can and should say “No, there are important game theoretic and moral reasons why this is a bad idea” and suppress the urge. But we can also devise new activities, like knocking the enemy tribesman over and taking their ball, satisfying that urge without the negative consequences of war. I'd like access to the experience that ritual uniquely offers, if it can be done safely.

Ritual covers a range of experience. One subset of that is a kind of art. To give you some sense of what I mean here, here's a few clusters of activities.

Art, enjoyed alone for simple aesthetics.
Art that speaks to your beliefs.
Art that you enjoy appreciating with other people.
Beliefs that you enjoy sharing with other people.
Repetition of activities that you do every year.

And here are a few songs I like:

Silent Night
Carol of the Bells
Do You Hear What I Hear
The Word of God
Singularity

Art and Belief

I like Silent Night because it is a simple, tranquil song, often sung with skillful harmonies.

I like Carol of the Bell because it is a powerful, awe-inspiring song that is performed with immense complexity and skill.

I like Do You Hear What I Hear partly for the same reasons I like Silent Night - it begins with simple tranquility. But I also like it for ideological reasons - it showcases the power o...
[SEQ RERUN] Circular Altruism
by MinibearRex — 2011-12-30T05:20:39.802Z

Today's post, Circular Altruism was originally published on 22 January 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

Our moral preferences shouldn't be circular. If a policy A is better than B, and B is better than C, and C is better than D, and so on, then policy A really should be better than policy Z.

Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Against Discount Rates, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.
Affecting everything
by KatjaGrace — 2011-12-30T04:38:03.000Z

People often argue that X is hugely important because it affects everything else. Sleep is so important because it affects your whole day. You should value your health more than anything because you need it for everything else. And your freedom too. And friends, and food. AI is the most important thing to work on because you could use it to get anything else. Same with anything that makes money, or gains power. Also sociology, because it’s about understanding people, and everything else we care about depends on people’s behaviour. And maths, science, and engineering are more important than anything because they illuminate the rest of the world, which is the most important thing too. Politics is most important because it determines the policies our country runs under, which affect everything. Law is similar. I assume garbage collectors know they are doing the most important thing because without garbage disposal society would collapse.

It turns out an awful lot of things affect everything, and a lot of them affect a lot of things a lot. That something has a broad influence is certainly a good starting criteria for it being important. It’s just a really low bar. It shouldn’t be the whole reason anyone does science or repairs roads, because it doesn’t distinguish those activities from a huge number of other ones. There is more than one thing that affects everything, because the set of things we might care about are not causally organized like a tree, they are organized like a very loopy web of loops.

Even the dots on the right affect everything. Image via Wikipedia

Often this ‘affects everything’ criterion is not even used on any relevant margin. It is used in the sense that if you didn’t have sleep or any understanding of humans at all you would be in a much worse situation than if you had these things in abundance. A better question is whether sleeping another half hour or dedicating your own career to sociology is going to make a huge difference to everything. An even better question is whether it’s going to make an even bigger difference to everything than anything else you could do with that half hour or career. This is pretty well known, and applied in many circumstances, but for some reason it doesn’t stop people arguing from the interconnectedness of everything to the maximal importance of what...
Stupid Questions Open Thread
by Costanza — 2011-12-29T23:23:21.412Z

This is for anyone in the LessWrong community who has made at least some effort to read the sequences and follow along, but is still confused on some point, and is perhaps feeling a bit embarrassed. Here, newbies and not-so-newbies are free to ask very basic but still relevant questions with the understanding that the answers are probably somewhere in the sequences. Similarly, LessWrong tends to presume a rather high threshold for understanding science and technology. Relevant questions in those areas are welcome as well. Anyone who chooses to respond should respectfully guide the questioner to a helpful resource, and questioners should be appropriately grateful. Good faith should be presumed on both sides, unless and until it is shown to be absent. If a questioner is not sure whether a question is relevant, ask it, and also ask if it's relevant.