trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Self-Improvement or Shiny Distraction: Why Less Wrong is anti-Instrumental Rationality
by patrissimo — 2010-09-14T16:17:55.826Z

Introduction

Less Wrong is explicitly intended is to help people become more rational. Eliezer has posted that rationality means epistemic rationality (having & updating a correct model of the world), and instrumental rationality (the art of achieving your goals effectively). Both are fundamentally tied to the real world and our performance in it - they are about ability in practice, not theoretical knowledge (except inasmuch as that knowledge helps ability in practice). Unfortunately, I think Less Wrong is a failure at instilling abilities-in-practice, and designed in a way that detracts from people's real-world performance.

It will take some time, and it may be unpleasant to hear, but I'm going to try to explain what LW is, why that's bad, and sketch what a tool to actually help people become more rational would look like.

(This post was motivated by Anna Salomon's Humans are not automatically strategic and the response, more detailed background in footnote [1].)

Update / Clarification in response to some comments: This post is based on the assumption that a) the creators of Less Wrong wish Less Wrong to result in people becoming better at achieving their goals (instrumental rationality, aka "efficient productivity"), and b) Some (perhaps many) readers read it towards that goal. It is this I think is self-deception. I do not dispute that LW can be used in a positive way (read during fun time instead of the NYT or funny pictures on Digg), or that it has positive effects (exposing people to important ideas they might not see elsewhere). I merely dispute that reading fun things on the internet can help people become more instrumentally rational. Additionally, I think instrumental rationality is really important and could be a huge benefit to people's lives (in fact, is by definition!), and so a community value that "deliberate practice towards self-improvement" is more valuable and more important than "reading entertaining ideas on the internet" would be of immense value to LW as a community - while greatly decreasing the importance of LW as a website.

Why Less Wrong is not an effective route to increasing rationality.

Definition:

Work: time spent acting in an instrumentally rational manner, ie forcing your attention towards the tasks you have consciously determined will be the most effective at achieving your conscious...
Cambridge Less Wrong Meetup Sunday, Sep 19
by jimrandomh — 2010-09-14T14:10:07.482Z

We're still doing Cambridge/Boston-area Less Wrong meetups on the third Sunday of every month, 4pm at the Clear Conscience Cafe (C3) near the Central Square T station. Several people have indicated they'll be coming for the first time, so we should get a better turnout than in the past. I'll put a Less Wrong sign out on our table. All are welcome to attend, and I look forward to seeing you there!
The Affect Heuristic, Sentiment, and Art
by  — 2010-09-13T23:05:29.482Z

I was having a discussion with a friend and reading some related blog articles about the question of whether race affects IQ. (N.B. This post is NOT about the content of the arguments surrounding that question.) Now, like your typical LessWrong member, I subscribe to the Litany of Gendlin, I don’t want to hide from any truth, I believe in honest intellectual inquiry on all subjects. Also, like your typical LessWrong member, I don’t want to be a bigot. These two goals ought to be compatible, right?

But when I finished my conversation and went to lunch, something scary happened. Something I hesitate to admit publicly. I found myself having a negative attitude to all the black people in the cafeteria.

Needless to say, this wasn’t what I wanted. It makes no sense, and it isn’t the way I normally think. But human beings have an affect heuristic. We identify categories as broadly “good” or “bad,” and we tend to believe all good things or all bad things about a category, even when it doesn’t make sense. When we discuss the IQ’s of black and white people, we’re primed to think “yay white, boo black.” Even the act of reading perfectly sound research has that priming effect.

And conscious awareness and effort doesn’t seem to do much to fix this. The Implicit Awareness Test measures how quickly we group black faces with negative-affect words and white faces with positive-affect words, compared to our speed at grouping the black faces with the positive words and the white faces with the negative words. Nearly everyone, of every race, shows some implicit association of black with “bad.” And the researchers who created the test found no improvement with practice or effort.

The one thing that did reduce implicit bias scores was if test-takers primed themselves ahead of time by reading about eminent black historical figures. They were less likely to associate black with “bad” if they had just made a mental association between black and “good.” Which, in fact, was exactly how I snapped out of my moment of cafeteria racism: I recalled to my mind's ear a recording I like of Marian Anderson singing Schubert. The music affected me emotionally an

...
Intellectual Hipsters and Meta-Contrarianism
by Scott Alexander — 2010-09-13T21:36:33.236Z

Related to: Why Real Men Wear Pink, That Other Kind of Status, Pretending to be Wise, The "Outside The Box" Box

WARNING: Beware of things that are fun to argue -- Eliezer Yudkowsky

Science has inexplicably failed to come up with a precise definition of "hipster", but from my limited understanding a hipster is a person who deliberately uses unpopular, obsolete, or obscure styles and preferences in an attempt to be "cooler" than the mainstream. But why would being deliberately uncool be cooler than being cool?
As previously discussed, in certain situations refusing to signal can be a sign of high status. Thorstein Veblen invented the term "conspicuous consumption" to refer to the showy spending habits of the nouveau riche, who unlike the established money of his day took great pains to signal their wealth by buying fast cars, expensive clothes, and shiny jewelery. Why was such flashiness common among new money but not old? Because the old money was so secure in their position that it never even occurred to them that they might be confused with poor people, whereas new money, with their lack of aristocratic breeding, worried they might be mistaken for poor people if they didn't make it blatantly obvious that they had expensive things.
The old money might have started off not buying flashy things for pragmatic reasons - they didn't need to, so why waste the money? But if F. Scott Fitzgerald is to be believed, the old money actively cultivated an air of superiority to the nouveau riche and their conspicuous consumption; not buying flashy objects becomes a matter of principle. This makes sense: the nouveau riche need to differentiate themselves from the poor, but the old money need to differentiate themselves from the nouveau riche.
This process is called countersignaling, and one can find its telltale patterns in many walks of life. Those who study human romantic attraction warn men not to "come on too strong", and this has similarities to the nouveau riche example. A total loser might come up to a woman without a hint of romance, promise her nothing, and demand sex. A more sophisticated man might buy roses for a woman, write her love poetry, hover on her every wish, et cetera; this signifies that he is not a total loser. But the most desirable men may deliberately avoid doing nice things for women in an attempt to signal they are so high status that they don't ne...
I don’t clean because the house is never dirty
by KatjaGrace — 2010-09-13T08:49:08.000Z

I often think about this when someone thinks I should do more housework:

When women see how little housework men do, they interpret it as “shirking” …Men, in turn, feel unfairly maligned…Who is right? …Usually, men.

The evidence: Look at the typical bachelor’s apartment. Even when a man pays the full cost of cleanliness and receives the full benefit, he doesn’t do much. Why not? Because the typical man doesn’t care very much about cleanliness. When the bachelor gets married, he almost certainly starts doing more housework than he did when he was single. How can you call that shirking?

To some extent it’s true, but in my experience a lot of conflict between clean and messy people seems indeed because the messy person ends up doing less than their fair share of work, but also much less than they are willing to do. This is because people often decide when to do a chore based on when it has reached a certain level of urgency. For instance when the floor becomes muddy enough it triggers cleaning. When two people have different standards, the cleanlier one is always the first to be triggered, so they clean again and again while the other is endlessly about to clean but beaten to it. This can be fixed by relying on another method to decide when to clean, or by the person with lower standards learning to be triggered at the same point as the other person, but if one person endlessly cleans while the other endlessly claims they were going to do it tomorrow, it’s easy for resentment to cloud assessment of this underlying problem.
September 2010 Southern California Meetup
by JenniferRM — 2010-09-13T02:31:18.915Z

The second LessWrong meetup for Southern California will happen on Saturday September 25th, 2010! The meetup will start at 1PM and probably run for 4 or 5 hours in the Platt Campus Center of Harvey Mudd College. Thanks are due to the Harvey Mudd Future Tech Club for the location.
We will be meeting in a conference room with tables, chairs, whiteboards, and a projector. Based on the July SoCal LW Meetup we discovered that the most interesting thing was to have small group conversations but that turned out to be tricky in a pub. This time we're optimizing for conversation, but pizza will almost assuredly be ordered and there will be free cookies and soda!
Last time several people brought interested friends. Also some people who had been reading a long time but had never commented before showed up (only about 60% of us had LW logins) and this seemed to work pretty well. It was a very friendly group :-)
For travel planning purposes, you should probably be aware that the time and location was specifically planned to be ~10 blocks north of the Claremont Metrolink Station, 15 minutes after a train arrives there from the hub at LA Union Station. Train schedules can be searched here. Walking directions from the Metrolink Station:

Take College Ave north to 12th St.

Go east on north side of 12th St (which becomes Platt Blvd) until you see the big Harvey Mudd College sign on the left side of the street.

Head north into campus there, to the very visible flagpole.

Platt Campus Center will be the big building right to the northeast.

We should have signs set up in and around the building, but basically once inside the big central area, just head east.

For those arriving via car there is a parking lot directly behind the building (it's covered with trees on the Google maps aerial view). There should be plenty of spots open on a Saturday. Also, look for carpooling comment threads, here for Santa Barbara, here for Orange County, here for San Diego, and here for Pasadena/Glendale.
The Effectiveness of Developing World Aid
by multifoliaterose — 2010-09-12T21:56:55.904Z

Several Less Wrong posters [1], [2], [3] have cited the interview with James Shikwati titled "For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!" as evidence that Western aid to Africa is actively destructive to Africa. According to the wikipedia page on James Shikwati:

Jeffrey D. Sachs, a Columbia University professor who is a leading aid advocate, calls Mr. Shikwati’s criticisms of foreign assistance “shockingly misguided” and “amazingly wrong.” “This happens to be a matter of life and death for millions of people, so getting it wrong has huge consequences,” Mr. Sachs said.

I think it's important for those interested in the question of whether developing world aid is effective to look to those who can point to formal studies about the effectiveness of African aid rather than basing their judgments on quotes from individuals whose opinions may very well have been heavily skewed by selection bias and/or driven by ideological considerations which have nothing to do with the available evidence.

Engaging with the evidence in detail is a very time-consuming task and one beyond the scope of this blog entry. I will however quote various experts with links to useful references.

Divided Views On Overall Impact of Developing World Aid:

I've found Paul Collier to be apparently even-handed. Readers interested in studying the the effectiveness of developing world aid may like to study Paul Collier's papers on the subject. Paul Collier summarizes his views in his recent book titled The Bottom Billion.

The left seems to want to regard aid as some sort of reparations for colonialism. In other words, it's a statement about the guilt of Western society, not about development. In this view, the only role for the bottom billion is as victims: they all suffer from our sins. The right seems to want to equate aid with welfare scrounging. In other words, it is rewarding the feckless and so accentuating the problem. Between these two there is a thin sliver of sanity called aid for development. It runs something like this. We used to be that poor once. It took us two hundred years to get where we are. Let's try to speed things up for these countries.

Aid does tend to speed up the growth process. A reasonable estimate is that over the last thirty years it has added around one percentage point to the annual growth rate of the bottom billion. This does not so

...
Reminder: Weekly LW meetings in NYC
by alyssavance — 2010-09-12T20:44:50.435Z

Hey everyone. This is just a reminder that there are weekly Less Wrong/Overcoming Bias meetups in New York City. Meetups are usually held on Tuesday at 7 PM, in lower Manhattan (south of Central Park). If you're interested, more information is available if you sign up for the overcomingbiasnyc Google Group. If you're in the area, hope to see you there!
The Science of Cutting Peppers
by Apprentice — 2010-09-12T13:14:46.151Z

Summary: Rigorous scientific experiments are hard to apply in daily life but we still want to try out and evaluate things like self-improvement methods. In doing so we can look for things such as a) effect sizes that are so large that they don't seem likely to be attributable to bias, b) a deep understanding of the mechanism of a technique, c) simple non-rigorous tests.

Hello there! This is my first attempt at a top-level post and I'll start it off with a little story.

Five years ago, in a kitchen in London...

My wife: We're going to have my friends over for dinner and we're making that pasta sauce everyone likes. I'm going to need you to cut some red peppers.
Me: Can do! *chop chop chop*
My wife: Hey, Mr. Engineer, you've got seeds all over! What are you doing to that pepper?
Me: Well, admittedly this time I was a bit clumsy and there's more seed spillage than usual - but it's precisely to avoid spilling seeds that I start by surgically removing the core and then...
My wife: Stop, just stop. That's got to be the worst possible way to do this. See, this is how you cut a pepper, *chop chop chop*. Nice slices, no mess.

Me: *is humiliated* *learns*

Now, ever since then I've cut peppers using the method my wife showed me. It's a much better way to do it. But wait! How do I know that? Don't I realize that humans are subject to massive cognitive biases? Maybe I just want to please my wife by doing things her way so I've convinced myself her method is better. Maybe I'm remembering the hits and forgetting the misses - maybe I've forgotten all the times my method worked out great and the times her method failed. Maybe I am indeed making less of a mess than I used to but it's simply due to my knife skills improving - and that would have happened even if I'd stuck with the old method. And there are probably a dozen more biases and confounding factors that could come into play but I haven't even thought of.
Don't I need to do a test? How about cutting up lots of peppers using the two alternative methods and measuring seed spillage? But, no, that's not good enough - I could subconsciously affect the result by applying less skill when using one method. I'd need a neutral party to operate the methods, preferably a number of people. And I'd need a neutral observer too. The person who measures the seed spillage from each operation should not know which method was used. Yeah, a double ...
Steps to Achievement: The Pitfalls, Costs, Requirements, and Timelines
by lionhearted (Sebastian Marshall) — 2010-09-11T22:58:38.145Z

Reply to: Humans Are Not Automatically Strategic

In "Humans Are Not Automatically Strategic," Anna Salamon outlined some ways that people could take action to be more successful and achieve goals, but do not:

But there are clearly also heuristics that would be useful to goal-achievement (or that would be part of what it means to “have goals” at all) that we do not automatically carry out. We do not automatically:

(a) Ask ourselves what we’re trying to achieve;

(b) Ask ourselves how we could tell if we achieved it (“what does it look like to be a good comedian?”) and how we can track progress;

(c) Find ourselves strongly, intrinsically curious about information that would help us achieve our goal;

(d) Gather that information (e.g., by asking as how folks commonly achieve our goal, or similar goals, or by tallying which strategies have and haven’t worked for us in the past);

(e) Systematically test many different conjectures for how to achieve the goals, including methods that aren’t habitual for us, while tracking which ones do and don’t work;

(f) Focus most of the energy that *isn’t* going into systematic exploration, on the methods that work best;

(g) Make sure that our "goal" is really our goal, that we coherently want it and are not constrained by fears or by uncertainty as to whether it is worth the effort, and that we have thought through any questions and decisions in advance so they won't continually sap our energies;

(h) Use environmental cues and social contexts to bolster our motivation, so we can keep working effectively in the face of intermittent frustrations, or temptations based in hyperbolic discounting;

.... or carry out any number of other useful techniques. Instead, we mostly just do things.

I believe that's a fantastic list of achievement/victory heuristics. Some of these are difficult to do, though. Let's look to make this into a practical, actionable sort of document. I believe the steps outlined above can be broadly grouped. I've done it with some minor rephrasing to make it in first person plural -

Identify: (a) Ask ourselves what we're trying to achieve, (b) ask ourselves how we could tell if we achieved it and how we can track progress

Research: (c) Become strongly curious about information that would help a...
Ignorance of non-existent preferences
by KatjaGrace — 2010-09-11T16:03:25.000Z

I often hear it said that since you can’t know what non existent people or creatures want, you can’t count bringing them into existence as a benefit to them even if you guess they will probably like it. For instance Adam Ozimek makes this argument here.

Does this absolute agnosticism about non-existent preferences mean it is also a neutral act to bring someone into existence when you expect them to have a net nasty experience?
Memetic Hazards in Videogames
by jimrandomh — 2010-09-10T02:22:22.457Z

Hello, player character, and welcome to the Mazes of Menace! Your goal is to get to the center and defeat the Big Bad. You know this is your goal because you received a message from a very authoritative source that said so. Alas, the maze is filled with guards and traps that make every step dangerous. You have reached an intersection, and there are two doors before you. Door A leads towards the center; it probably takes you to your destination. Door B leads away from the center; it could loop back, but it's probably a dead end. Which door do you choose?

The correct answer, and the answer which every habitual video game player will instinctively choose, is door B: the probable dead end. Because your goal is not to reach the end quickly, but to search as much of the maze's area as you can, and by RPG genre convention, dead ends come with treasure. Similarly, if you're on a quest to save the world, you do side-quests to put it off as long as possible, because you're optimizing for fraction-of-content-seen, rather than probability-world-is-saved, which is 1.0 from the very beginning.

If you optimize for one thing, while thinking that you're optimizing something else, then you may generate incorrect subgoals and heuristics. If seen clearly, the doors represent a trade-off between time spent and area explored. But what happens if that trade-off is never acknowledged, and you can't see the situation for what it really is? Then you're loading garbage into your goal system. I'm writing this because someone reported what looks like a video game heuristic leaking into the real world. While this hasn't been studied, it could plausibly be a common problem. Here are some of the common memetic hazards I've found in video games.

For most games, there's a guide that explains exactly how to complete your objective perfectly, but to read it would be cheating. Your goal is not to master the game, but to experience the process of mastering the game as laid out by the game's designers, without outside interference. In the real world, if there's a guide for a skill you want to learn, you read it.

Permanent choices can be chosen arbitrarily on a whim, or based solely on what you think best matches your style, and you don't need to research which is better. This is because in games, the classes, skills, races and alignments are meant to be balanced, so they're all close to equally good....