trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
The map of cognitive biases, errors and obstacles affecting judgment and management of global catastrophic risks
by turchin — 2016-07-16T12:11:07.803Z

“We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, and a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers... and also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of Budweiser, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. Not that we needed all that for the trip, but once you get locked into a serious drug collection, the tendency is to push it as far as you can.”

The map is based on 100+ page text which lists a 200+ biases and other cognitive problems which may arise during identification and prevention of x-risks.

The map is very preliminary, after all. Much more biases could be identified. The main idea is to show that there are many biases, so any our judgement about x-risks will be distorted. Larger safety margins though required.

The map also intended to show that we could classify biases and other obstacles, and it could help to navigate us to truth and safety. The goal of the map is to show complexity of prediction and management of future x-risks, as well as help to identify sources of mistakes.

Each box has link on full explanation of the bias.

Boxes which were covered in Eliezer Yudkowsky about cognitive biases article are red.

Numbers in the boxes arrow on paragraphs in the full text.

The Y axis of the map shows stages of x-risk prevention in time, on which certain biases may work. Some biases could influence assessment of risks and other will show themselves in management of dangerous situations.

The X axis gives very rough typology of biases based of their sources.

See Bostrom's article for the similar typology:

He suggests 3 types of biases: believes, shortcomings of our mind and ignorance.

Sorry that it all looks like tetris. ))

Read pdf with clickable links.
[CORE] Concepts for Understanding the World
by SquirrelInHell — 2016-07-16T10:53:29.460Z

Background:

I'm recently doing a big project to increase my scholarship and modeling power for both rationality and traditional "serious" topics. One thing I found very useful is taking notes with a clear structure.

The structure I'm using currently is as follows:

- write down useful concepts,

- write down (as a separate category) useful heuristics & things to do in various situations,

- do not write facts, opinions or anything else (I rely on unaided memory to get more filtering).

Heuristic: learn concepts before facts!

Note that you can be mistaken about facts, but you can't harm your epistemology by learning concepts. Even if a concept turns out to be useless or misleading, you are better off knowing about it, understanding how it's misleading, and being able to avoid the trap when you see it.

Let's share concepts!

Please give (at a minimum) a name and a reference (link). A short description in plain language is also welcome.
New LW Meetup: Greenville NC
by FrankAdamek — 2016-07-15T15:45:12.217Z

This summary was posted to LW Main on July 15th. The following week's summary is here.

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

Bay City Meetup: 19 August 2016 01:25PM
Boise, ID Meetup: 24 July 2016 02:30PM
Greenville, NC meetup: 23 July 2016 04:00PM

Irregularly scheduled Less Wrong meetups are taking place in:

Australian-ish Online Hangout July: 16 July 2016 07:30PM
Baltimore Weekly Meetup: 17 July 2016 08:00PM
European Community Weekend: 02 September 2016 03:35PM
[Gen Con/Indianapolis] Gen Con: Applied Game Theory: 06 August 2016 02:00PM
San Antonio Meetup: 17 July 2016 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:

[Moscow] Role playing game based on HPMOR in Moscow: 16 July 2016 03:00PM
Moscow: Ernst Mach philosophy, Analysis of competing hypotheses, Paranoid Zendo and other games: 17 July 2016 02:00PM
Sydney Rationality Dojo - August 2016: 07 August 2016 04:00PM
Sydney Rationality Dojo - September 2016: 04 September 2016 04:00PM
Sydney Rationality Dojo - October 2016: 02 October 2016 04:00PM
Washington, D.C.: Reading Book Excerpts: 17 July 2016 03:30PM

Locations with regularly scheduled meetups: Austin, Berlin, Boston, Brussels, Buffalo, Canberra, Columbus, Denver, Kraków, London, Madison WI, Melbourne, Moscow, New Hampshire, New York, Philadelphia, Research Triangle NC, San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle, Sydney, Tel Aviv, Toronto, Vienna, Washington DC, and West Los Angeles. There's also a 24/7 online study hall for coworking LWers and a Slack channel for daily discussion and online meetups on Sunday night US time.

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 is posted on the front page every Friday. These are an attempt to collect information on all the meetups happening in upcoming weeks. The best way to get your meetup featured is still to use the Add New Meetup feature, but you'll also have the benefit of having your meetup mentioned in a weekly overview. Thes...
confirmation bias, thought experiment
by Douglas_Reay — 2016-07-15T12:19:21.632Z

Why do people end up with differing conclusions, given the same data?

Model

The information we get from others can not always be 100% relied upon. Some of the people telling you stuff are liars, some are stupid, and some are incorrectly or insufficiently informed. Even in the case where the person giving you an opinion is honest, smart and well informed, they are still unlikely to be able to tell you accurately how reliable their own opinion is.

So our brains use an 'unreliability' factor. Automatically we take what others tell us, and discount it by a certain amount, depending on how 'unreliable' we estimate the source to be.

We also compare what people tell us about 'known reference points' in order to update our estimates of their unreliability.

If Sally tells me that vaccines cause AIDS and I am very much more certain that this is not the case, than I am of Sally's reliability, then instead of modifying my opinion about what causes AIDS, I modify my opinion of how reliable Sally is.

If I'm only slightly more certain, then I might take the step of asking Sally her reason for thinking that, and looking at her data.

If I have a higher opinion of Sally than my own knowledge of science, and I don't much care or am unaware of what other people think about the relationship between vaccines and AIDS, then I might just accept what she says, provisionally, without checking her data.

If I have a very much higher opinion of Sally, then not only will I believe her, but my opinion of her reliability will actually increase as I assess her as some mould-breaking genius who knows things that others do not.

Importantly, once we have altered our opinion, based upon input that we originally considered to be fairly reliable, we are very bad at reversing that alteration, if the input later turns out to be less reliable than we originally thought. This is called the "continued influence effect", and we can use it to explain a number of things...

Experiment

Let us consider a thought experiment where two subjects, Peter and Paul, are exposed to input about a particular topic (such as "Which clothes washing powder is it best to use?") from multiple sources. Both will be exposed to the same sources, 100 in favour of using the Persil brand of washing powder, and 100 in favour of using the Bold brand of washing powder, but in a different ord...
Meetup : Baltimore Weekly Meetup
by iarwain1 — 2016-07-15T11:51:29.963Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Baltimore Weekly Meetup

WHEN:
17 July 2016 08:00:00PM (-0400)

WHERE:
1726 reisterstown road pikesville maryland 21208

Pikesville DoubleTree - Hilton, at the restaurant / bar or at one of the tables outside.

Discussion article for the meetup : Baltimore Weekly Meetup
Wikipedia usage survey results
by riceissa — 2016-07-15T00:49:34.596Z

Contents

Summary

Background

Previous surveys

Motivation

Survey questions for the first survey

Survey questions for the second survey

Survey questions for the third survey (Google Consumer Surveys)

Results

S1Q1: number of Wikipedia pages read per week

S1Q2: affinity for Wikipedia in search results

S1Q3: section vs whole page

S1Q4: search functionality on Wikipedia and surprise at lack of Wikipedia pages

S1Q5: behavior on pages

S2Q1: number of Wikipedia pages read per week

S2Q2: multiple-choice of articles read

S2Q3: free response of articles read

S2Q4: free response of surprise at lack of Wikipedia pages

S3Q1 (Google Consumer Surveys)

Summaries of responses (exports for SurveyMonkey, weblink for Google Consumer Surveys)

Survey-making lessons

Further questions

Further reading

Acknowledgements

Document source and versions

License

Summary

The summary is not intended to be comprehensive. It highlights the most important takeaways you should get from this post.

Vipul Naik and I are interested in understanding how people use Wikipedia. One reason is that we are getting more people to work on editing and adding content to Wikipedia. We want to understand the impact of these edits, so that we can direct efforts more strategically. We are also curious!

From May to July 2016, we conducted two surveys of people’s Wikipedia usage. We collected survey responses from audience segments include Slate Star Codex readers, Vipul’s Facebook friends, and a few audiences through SurveyMonkey Audience and Google Consumer Surveys. Our survey questions measured how heavily people use Wikipedia, what sort of pages they read or expected to find, the relation between their search habits and Wikipedia, and other actions they took within Wikipedia.

Different audience segments responded very differently to the survey. Notably, the SurveyMonkey audience (which is closer to being representative of the general population) appears to use Wikipedia a lot less than Vipul’s Facebook friends and Slate Star Codex readers. Their consumption of Wikipedia is also more passive: they are less likely to explicitly seek Wikipedia pages when searching for a topic, and less likely to engage in additional actions on Wikipedia pages. Even the college-educated SurveyMonkey audience used Wikipedia very little.

This is tentative evidence that Wikipedia consumption is skewed towards

...
Meetup : Moscow: Ernst Mach philosophy, Analysis of competing hypotheses, Paranoid Zendo and other games
by Slava Matyukhin — 2016-07-14T18:41:14.430Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Moscow: Ernst Mach philosophy, Analysis of competing hypotheses, Paranoid Zendo and other games

WHEN:
17 July 2016 02:00:00PM (+0300)

WHERE:
Москва, Большая Дорогомиловская, д.5к2

Note: most our members join meetups via other channels. Still, the correlation between "found out about Moscow meetups via lesswrong.com" and "is a great fit for our community" is very high. So we're posting just a short link to the hackpad document with the schedule here instead of the full translation of the announcement into English.

Pad with the details about 17.07.2016 meetup.

We're meeting at the "Kocherga" anticafe, as usual.

Discussion article for the meetup : Moscow: Ernst Mach philosophy, Analysis of competing hypotheses, Paranoid Zendo and other games
Iterating hurt
by KatjaGrace — 2016-07-14T15:00:06.000Z

A truish story with all names and many circumstances altered:

Alice and Bob were friends, but their friendship had seen some rough patches recently due to an ill-advised business experiment and some ensuing uncomfortable feelings. Today they were co-working, with the intent of mending whatever was broken through dedicated inattention. The two of them sat down in Alice’s kitchen. Bob took out paper, pens, and a loud bell. He picked up the bell and proceeded to pace back and forth across the room jangling it with the vigor of two arms and staring into space.

It turned out that Alice loved the sound of loudly jangling bells, which reminded her of the beautiful church she used to live next to. And she was working on her own general solution to coordination problems—a puzzle so fascinating that she could not possibly be distracted, even by the delightful bell song. So the noise caused Alice no suffering.

However, Alice reasoned that Bob had no way of knowing that she would not be harmed, and that he really should have expected that his bell-ringing would annoy her a lot in expectation. So she had little choice but to infer that Bob didn’t care about hurting her. And that did hurt.

Furthermore, she reasoned that Bob must be aware that she would be hurt by observing that he didn’t care about hurting her. So he should have anticipated not only some suffering in expectation from the bell, but also this second level of more certain suffering from observing Bob’s indifference. Knowing that he was happy to deal her even that much suffering was even worse. And furthermore he didn’t even care about this extra suffering!

On top of that, she reasoned, once there is enough common knowledge of enough certainty of enough suffering willingly inflicted, Bob can’t be doing this by accident. It becomes an intentional affront. A message of hatred, rather than an inadvertent sign of indifference.

She became extremely angry and marched out of the front door.

(Bob made a mental note that Alice really didn’t like bell sounds.)

Knowing that someone knowingly hurt you is hurtful. And knowing that someone knowingly hurt you by indirectly causing you to know that they knowingly hurt you is hurtful. And so on.

I suggest that social injury often has this character of being magnified iteratively by approaching common knowledge.

Perfectly legitimate offense do...
Meetup : Washington, D.C.: Reading Book Excerpts
by RobinZ — 2016-07-13T22:58:18.599Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington, D.C.: Reading Book Excerpts

WHEN:
17 July 2016 03:30:00PM (-0400)

WHERE:
Donald W. Reynolds Center for American Art and Portraiture

We'll be meeting to read out and discuss excerpts from books.

As usual, side conversations are allowed and encouraged.

Upcoming meetups:

Jul. 24: Fun & Games

Jul. 31: Visiting Museums

Aug. 7: TED Talks

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington, D.C.: Reading Book Excerpts
Meetup : Gen Con: Applied Game Theory
by Zubon — 2016-07-13T21:11:00.828Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Gen Con: Applied Game Theory

WHEN:
06 August 2016 02:00:00PM (-0400)

WHERE:
100 S Capitol Ave, Indianapolis, IN 46225, USA

Time tentative, location to be worked out. If you are attending Gen Con and want to meet up with rationalists, please comment if you have a preferred time and location. Posting this now to get it on the calendar and solicit responses. Default location is in the card game area, specific location to be found at the time (and then posted here). UPDATE: setting up at the blue Fantasy Flight tables, by the X-Wing Miniatures banner, in front of the HQ table, just before the banner showing the switch to Asmodee.

Meet up with Less Wrong friends and play games! Learn the newest releases, play classics, and otherwise have fun. A purely social event, running for as long as people want to stay and play, with potential continued discussion over dinner.

As at all events, there is no minimum degree, IQ, reading record, height, age, or neurotypicality to participate. Bring games if you like, learn new games if you like, and expect a range from "I am here for the championships" to "what are we Settling?"

We seemed like the kind of nerds who might go to Gen Con. You can also use the comments here to find others attending, arrange other connections at the event, discuss the con, etc.

Discussion article for the meetup : Gen Con: Applied Game Theory
Suggestion: jog instead of walk
by  — 2016-07-13T17:34:25.666Z

A bit of background: my manager literally runs around the office when she needs something so she can return to her desk asap. While watching her one day I thought about trying my own experiment of jogging from place to place.

I chose jogging instead of running as I figured the expenditure of energy and anaerobic respiration required for a full on run/sprint would take too much energy for the seconds saved and distance traveled, while jogging would feel a more natural transition of energy and still save some time.

So far, the only 'drawback' I've seen is the occasional confused look from a passerby (truthfully though, most people don't seem to care). Comparing this to the increase of overall energy and positive emotion I've felt, it's been well worth it. There also might be times and places where jogging would be inappropriate, so use discretion of course.

Also, you don't have to start out with jogging right away! I run daily anyway so that's why I transitioned right away. You could start with a brisker walk and work your way up.

If you do try it out, please feel free to let me know how it works out for you! :)
tDCS, Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers
by morganism — 2016-07-12T19:37:37.085Z

"The evidence of harm would be the evidence that you can hurt some cognitive functions with the same stimulation protocols that help another cognitive function. But they're completely correct that we don't have any evidence saying you're definitely hurting yourself. We do have evidence that you're definitely changing your brain."

interview:

http://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2016/07/11/caution-brain-hacking

Paper:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.24689/references

I was aware of the variability of responses to stim, but not the paper that leveraging one brain function could impair another. This was also written to give the docs some info to help inform their patients.

edit

I'll also tuck this in here, as i posted it to open thread.

Texting changes brain waves to new, previously unknown, pattern.

http://sciencebulletin.org/archives/2623.html

Makes me wonder if they were using spell check, or the new, shortend speak. By using constructed kernels, or images of words and concepts, it looks like machine learning retrieval or construction is already being practiced here ?
Meetup : Melbourne Social Meetup: July
by Maelin — 2016-07-12T12:40:44.654Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Melbourne Social Meetup: July

WHEN:
15 July 2016 06:30:00PM (+1000)

WHERE:
Alchemist's Refuge, 328 Little Lonsdale St, Melbourne

This month's Social Meetup is on as scheduled!

FB Event Page: https://www.facebook.com/events/1049029171819342/

Social Meetups are casual get-togethers held on the third Friday of each month. They are informal events where we sit around and chat over a few drinks and a meal. Sometimes we will play games as well.

Where? Bull & Bear Tavern, 347 Flinders Lane, Melbourne

When? Friday 17th June, starting from 6:30pm. Start time is loose so show up whenever. We are usually there until about 11pm.

Dinner? The B&B serves reasonable pub food and we will usually share some wedges or similar. A few of us typically go for a late dinner after the event. Recently we've been going to Father's Office which offers late night a la carte dining at half price.

Contact? Any issues or questions, contact Richard on 0421231789.

Hope to see you there!

Discussion article for the meetup : Melbourne Social Meetup: July
Open thread, Jul. 11 - Jul. 17, 2016
by MrMind — 2016-07-11T07:09:41.124Z

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.
Meetup : San Antonio Meetup
by TheAltar — 2016-07-11T01:48:54.619Z

Discussion article for the meetup : San Antonio Meetup

WHEN:
17 July 2016 02:00:00PM (-0500)

WHERE:
12651 Vance Jackson Rd #118, San Antonio, TX 78230

Meetup to discuss rationality and all things LessWrong at Yumi Berry.

Look for the sign that says "LW".

Discussion article for the meetup : San Antonio Meetup
A Very Concrete Model of Learning From Regrets
by SquirrelInHell — 2016-07-09T11:30:57.848Z

Warning 1: This post is written in the form of Java-like pseudocode.

If you have no knowledge of programming, you might have trouble understanding it.

(If you do, it still does not guarantee you will understand, but your chances are better.)

Warning 2: I have more than moderate, but less than high, confidence that this model is approximately correct.

It doesn't mean that my or anyone's brain works exactly in the way shown in the code, but rather that the flow of data in the brain is approximately as if it were using such an algorithm.

The word "approximately" includes stuff I don't (yet) know about, but also stuff I didn't include below to keep it simple.

I wrote this specifically for regrets, but processing of positive memories seems to have similar mechanics (with different constants).

Warning 3: There is little chance of finding any existing studies/data etc. that could directly validate or invalidate this model. (However if you know of any, I'm all ears.)

There might some stuff that is correlated, so if you know something mention it too.

class Brain
{
...

// This represents a memory about a single event

class Memory
{
...

float associatedEmotions; // positive or negative
}

// Your brain keeps track of this

private Map<Memory, Float> memoriesRequireProcessing = new Map<>();

// Add new stuff to the queue

private void somethingHappened(Memory newMemory)
{
float affect = getAffectOfSituation(newMemory);

newMemory.associatedEmotions = affect * 0.5;

if (Math.abs(affect) > 0.1)
memoriesRequireProcessing.add(newMemory, Mat

...