trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Problems in Education
by ThinkOfTheChildren — 2013-04-29T21:00:15.768Z

Alright guys. The main complaint of the discussion article was simply "hoax", yelled as loudly or as quietly as the user felt about it. Hopefully this won't get the same treatment.
We have been evaluating educational, grant-funded programs for 20 years. Throughout these years, we have witnessed a slow change in how students are selected for academic services. Traditionally, students were targeted for academic services and opportunities based on demographic characteristics—usually race and, until recently, family income status (based on free or reduced priced lunch). Wealthier, white students are given challenging lessons and tracked into the advanced courses, while their non-white and poorer peers are tracked low and given remediation services. The latter students are often referred to as “at-risk,” though we are finding more and more that the greatest risk these students face is being placed into inappropriate remedial courses which eventually bar them from access to advanced courses. After students have been labeled “at-risk,” and then tracked inappropriately and provided unnecessary (and often harmful) remediation, their downward trajectory continues throughout their education. The demographic gap this creates continues to expand, despite the lip service and excessive tax and grant funds paid to eliminate—or at least lessen—this very gap. This “at-risk” model of assigning services is slowly being replaced by a “pro-equity” model. The driving force behind this change is the availability and use of data.
The literature is full of documentation that certain demographic groups have traditionally had less access to advanced math and science courses than equally scoring students belonging to demographic groups thought to be “not at risk.” Some examples from research follow.
• Sixth grade course placement is the main predictor of eighth grade course placement, and social factors--mainly race---are key predictors of sixth grade course placement (O’Connor, Lewis, & Mueller, 2007).
• Among low-income students, little is done to assess which are high achievers. Few programs are aimed at them, and their numbers are lumped in with “adequate” achievers in No Child Left Behind reporting. As a result, little is ...
[Link] 2012 Winter Intelligence Conference videos available
by Pablo — 2013-04-29T20:01:45.806Z

The Future of Humanity Institute has released video footage of the 2012 Winter Intelligence Conference. The videos currently available are:

Stuart Armstrong - Predicting AI... or Failing to

Miles Brundage - Limitations and Risks of Machine Ethics

Steve Omohundro - Autonomous Technology and the Greater Human Good

Anders Sandberg - Ethics and Impact of Brain Emulations

Carl Shulman - Could We Use Untrustworthy Human Brain Emulations to Make Trustworthy Ones
Good luck, Mr. Rationalist
by Stuart_Armstrong — 2013-04-29T18:44:06.652Z

Is there any rationalist equivalent of "good luck"? I've tried a few variants, such as "work well", "knock them dead", "we're with you" and certain situation-specific phrasings, but haven't found anything that worked generally - though a hearty "may all the gods of Olympus be with you!" can serve. Not a vitally important point, but it would be nice to have something similarly supportive and yet accurate to say.
Privileging the Question
by Qiaochu_Yuan — 2013-04-29T18:30:35.545Z

Related to: Privileging the Hypothesis

Remember the exercises in critical reading you did in school, where you had to look at a piece of writing and step back and ask whether the author was telling the whole truth? If you really want to be a critical reader, it turns out you have to step back one step further, and ask not just whether the author is telling the truth, but why he's writing about this subject at all.

-- Paul Graham

There's an old saying in the public opinion business: we can't tell people what to think, but we can tell them what to think about.

-- Doug Henwood

Many philosophers—particularly amateur philosophers, and ancient philosophers—share a dangerous instinct: If you give them a question, they try to answer it.

-- Eliezer Yudkowsky

Here are some political questions that seem to commonly get discussed in US media: should gay marriage be legal? Should Congress pass stricter gun control laws? Should immigration policy be tightened or relaxed?

These are all examples of what I'll call privileged questions (if there's an existing term for this, let me know): questions that someone has unjustifiably brought to your attention in the same way that a privileged hypothesis unjustifiably gets brought to your attention. The questions above are probably not the most important questions we could be answering right now, even in politics (I'd guess that the economy is more important). Outside of politics, many LWers probably think "what can we do about existential risks?" is one of the most important questions to answer, or possibly "how do we optimize charity?"

Why has the media privileged these questions? I'd guess that the media is incentivized to ask whatever questions will get them the most views. That's a very different goal from asking the most important questions, and is one reason to stop paying attention to the media.

The problem with privileged questions is that you only have so much attention to spare. Attention paid to a question that has been privileged funges against attention you could be paying to better questions. Even worse, it may not feel from the inside like anything is wrong: you can apply all of the epistemic rationality in the world to answering a question like "should Congress pass stricter gun control laws?" and never once ask yourself where that question came from and whether there are be...
Meetup : NewYork - Humanist Culture Open Mic
by Raemon — 2013-04-29T15:57:13.164Z

Discussion article for the meetup : NewYork - Humanist Culture Open Mic

WHEN:
01 May 2013 07:15:00PM (-0400)

WHERE:
2 West 64th Street (At Central Park West) New York, NY

God probably doesn't exist, but that's not the point.

The point is that we live in a ridiculously amazing world, full of ridiculously amazing people who started with sticks and stones and rudimentary social structure and somehow built skyscrapers, went to the moon, destroyed smallpox, invented new crops that could feed billions of people, connected the entire planet into a global internet hive-mind and we're not even done yet.

This is more awesome than you are currently thinking. Nope, more awesome than that. Keep going. More. More!

Fortunately we also invented stories and songs, to tell our children and each other how awesome we are, and to inspire people to go even further.

I started a open mic last year, to help create a musical and creative culture that promotes science, rationality, ethics and human progress. After a few months of hiatus we're relaunching, co-sponsored now by Center for Inquiry - NYC and the NY Society for Ethical Culture. Among my goals is to start steering the more mainstream skeptic/atheist/humanist movements towards harder, unanswered questions. This year, we're building towards a larger end of the year concert event.

The open mic is at the Ethical Culture building, on the 5th floor in room 514. Whether you do performance art (songs, stories, comedy or otherwise) or just want to listen, you are welcome to attend!

Meetup.com announcement is here, if you'd like to RSVP there:

http://cfinewyork.net/events/112756672/

Discussion article for the meetup : NewYork - Humanist Culture Open Mic
[LINK] Is it worth the time?
by alexvermeer — 2013-04-29T12:37:21.264Z

Another gem from xkcd: Is It Worth the Time? It visually answers the question:

How long can you work on making a routine task more efficient before you're spending more time than you save?

Of course, he's not the first person to ask this question, but the visual is handy. Note that the times are calculated assuming you'll save the time over five years.

For example, I've been pondering how to shorten my showers. If I can shave off 1 minute daily, I should be willing to invest up to (but no more than) an entire day to do it. If I think I can shave off five minutes preparing my breakfast, I should be willing to spend up to six days attempting to do so.
Meetup : Brussels meetup
by Axel — 2013-04-29T12:22:19.543Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Brussels meetup

WHEN:
18 May 2013 01:00:00PM (+0200)

WHERE:
Rue des Alexiens 55 1000 Bruxelles

We are once again meeting at 'la fleur en papier dorĂŠe' close to the Brussels Central station. If you feel like an intelligent discussion and are in the neighborhood, consider dropping by. As always, I'll have a sign. The meeting will be in English to facilitate both French and Dutch speaking members.

If you are coming for the first time, please consider filling out this one minute form, to share your contact information.

Discussion article for the meetup : Brussels meetup
Meet up in St. Petersburg, Russia
by Yuu — 2013-04-29T08:47:33.126Z

Andrey who participate in Moscow meet-up organization will visit St. Petersburg on 8th-12th of May. He can tell you about Moscow gatherings and applied rationality, show some exercises and useful methods.

We only need someone from St. Petersburg, who can find suitable venue and meet Andrey and other people there. Please write at lw@lesswrong.ru to coordinate efforts.

You can also write to me after 12th of May, and we will help you to organize a meet up.
LW Women Entries- Creepiness
by daenerys — 2013-04-28T15:43:49.722Z

Standard Intro

The following section will be at the top of all posts in the LW Women series.

Several months ago, I put out a call for anonymous submissions by the women on LW, with the idea that I would compile them into some kind of post. There is a LOT of material, so I am breaking them down into more manageable-sized themed posts.

Seven women replied, totaling about 18 pages.

Standard Disclaimer- Women have many different viewpoints, and just because I am acting as an intermediary to allow for anonymous communication does NOT mean that I agree with everything that will be posted in this series. (It would be rather impossible to, since there are some posts arguing opposite sides!)

To the submitters- If you would like to respond anonymously to a comment (for example if there is a comment questioning something in your post, and you want to clarify), you can PM your message and I will post it for you. If this happens a lot, I might create a LW_Women sockpuppet account for the submitters to share.

Please do NOT break anonymity, because it lowers the anonymity of the rest of the submitters.

Submitter D

The class that a lot of creepiness falls into for me is not respecting my no. Someone who doesn't respect a small no can't be trusted to respect a big one, when we're alone and I have fewer options to enforce it beside physical strength. Sometimes not respecting a no can be a matter of omission or carelessness, but I can't tell which.

While I'm in doubt, I'm not assuming the worst of you, but I'm on edge and alertly looking for new data in a way that's stressful for me and makes it hard for either of us to enjoy the encounter. And I'm sure as heck not going anywhere alone with you.

I've written up some short anecdotes that involved someone not respecting or constraining a no. They're at a range of intensities.

Joining someone for the first time and sitting down in a spot that blocks their exit from the conversation. Sometimes unavoidable (imagine joining people at a booth) but limits my options to exit and enforce a no.

Blocking an exit less literally by coming across as the kind of person who can't end a conversation (follows you between circles at a party, limits your ability to talk to other people, etc).

Asking for a number instead of offering yours. If I want to call you, I will, but when you ask for my n...
Meetup : Atlanta Lesswrong's May Meetup: The Rationality of Social Relationships, Friendship, Love, and Family.
by Nova_Division — 2013-04-28T05:28:25.755Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Atlanta Lesswrong's May Meetup: The Rationality of Social Relationships, Friendship, Love, and Family.

WHEN:
17 May 2013 07:00:00PM (-0400)

WHERE:
2388 Lawrenceville Hwy. Apt L. Decatur, GA 30033

We’ve been chipping away at the rationality of happiness, so let’s narrow in on one of the most influential components of happiness: social relationships, both platonic and romantic. Agenda:

Introductions, and meet and greet for new members.

Mini-presentations. Anyone is invited to present on a topic of their choice related to this month’s theme.

Discussions. We’ll start with a large group discussion and break into smaller groups as needed.

Games! Because games are fun, and build good social relationships. :-)

Recommended (but not required) reading: http://lesswrong.com/lw/70u/rationality_lessons_learned_from_irrational/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/63i/rational_romantic_relationships_part_1/

If you don’t get a chance to read these, don’t worry! We will set aside 10 minutes at the meeting to read the articles before discussion.

(Please contact me if you have allergies to cats, as our meeting space has two of the most adorable cats you’ve ever seen.)

Discussion article for the meetup : Atlanta Lesswrong's May Meetup: The Rationality of Social Relationships, Friendship, Love, and Family.
Three more ways identity can be a curse
by gothgirl420666 — 2013-04-28T02:53:18.335Z

The Buddhists believe that one of the three keys to attaining true happiness is dissolving the illusion of the self. (The other two are dissolving the illusion of permanence, and ceasing the desire that leads to suffering.) I'm not really sure exactly what it means to say "the self is an illusion", and I'm not exactly sure how that will lead to enlightenment, but I do think one can easily take the first step on this long journey to happiness by beginning to dissolve the sense of one's identity.

Previously, in "Keep Your Identity Small", Paul Graham showed how a strong sense of identity can lead to epistemic irrationally, when someone refuses to accept evidence against x because "someone who believes x" is part of his or her identity. And in Kaj Sotala's "The Curse of Identity", he illustrated a human tendency to reinterpret a goal of "do x" as "give the impression of being someone who does x". These are both fantastic posts, and you should read them if you haven't already.

Here are three more ways in which identity can be a curse.

1. Don't be afraid to change

James March, professor of political science at Stanford University, says that when people make choices, they tend to use one of two basic models of decision making: the consequences model, or the identity model. In the consequences model, we weigh the costs and benefits of our options and make the choice that maximizes our satisfaction. In the identity model, we ask ourselves "What would a person like me do in this situation?"1

The author of the book I read this in didn't seem to take the obvious next step and acknowledge that the consequences model is clearly The Correct Way to Make Decisions and basically by definition, if you're using the identity model and it's giving you a different result then the consequences model would, you're being led astray. A heuristic I like to use is to limit my identity to the "observer" part of my brain, and make my only goal maximizing the amount of happiness and pleasure the observer experiences, and minimizing the amount of misfortune and pain. It sounds obvious when you lay it out in these terms, but let me give an example.

Alice is a incoming freshman in college trying to choose her major. In Hypothetical University, there are only two majors: English, and business. Alice absolutely adores literature, and thinks business is dreadfully boring. Becoming a...
The Upward Scaling Importance of Rationality
by alfredmacdonald — 2013-04-27T18:30:02.865Z

I've read about a quarter of the sequences, but I'm not sure if this topic has been addressed on LessWrong before. If it has, let me know.

The Upward Scaling Importance of Rationality goes like this:

The more influence your thought process and decisions have, the more important it is that you're rationalist. In the grand scheme of things, it is relatively unimportant that a barback at a restaurant is a rationalist, and I say this having done that. It is extremely important that a leader of a highly influential company, or a president of a university or country is a rationalist. Their decisions affect thousands if not millions of people.

The more influential you are, the more your decisions have potential to screw over other people. Influence doesn't necessarily have to be in a management position: elementary school teachers and police officers are highly influential, even though they aren't in control of an organization. Influence can even be by virtue of the people you reach out to. A famous person with a large fanbase or a parent of a child prodigy, both have the capacity to influence the world with their decisions.

Though arguably, this can be extended to anyone who votes.

So rationality scales upward: the more influential someone is, the more important is it they're rationalists. Neglecting this can have bad consequences.
Are there good reasons to get into a PHD (i.e. in Philosophy)? And what to optimize for in such case?
by diegocaleiro — 2013-04-27T15:34:57.764Z

There are pretty strong reasons to be wary of academic philosophy. And the question here is whether there are good things to optimize for which come alongside a PHD generally, and also in particular in philosophy. So what to optimize for when pursuing a PHD?

Some alternatives include:

1) Smart students

2) Excellent advisor (with the cost of very little time and attention for you)

3) Young but still good advisor (no time-cost)

4) Level of similarity between what you want to research, and what your prospective advisor researchers

5) Freedom to do what you want in terms of directing your research

6) Confortable physical environment (Campus with sports area, good weather, and comfy social areas, nice café's to study)

7) Good contacts - Whatever that means within philosophy PHD's

8) Whatever works - meaning apply to all you can and think later, which implies that it is worth applying because it gets you a phd, not because of what it offers to you in other ways.

9) Nothing to do with academia - in this case, once you guarantee you'll get your phd, you optimize for something else, like social environment, being New York, hot students, having a beach and hiking area, etc...

Maybe some of these can be extended to pursuers of a PHD in other areas. Also, I'm assuming price is not a consideration (either all give you scholarships, or are free)

It seems to me that education is one of the things that people are most irrational about, with a lot of people going the 8 route by default, not decision, for instance. And paying the cost (in motivation, success and happiness) later down the road.
Links passing through api.viglink.com?
by Document — 2013-04-27T12:39:02.727Z

Visiting Less Wrong after being absent for a while can be a major time sink. The sidebar recent-posts and recent-comments links (which I usually have blocked, but not always; I haven't installed the relevant extensions on the system I'm on yet) draw me into interesting discussions, which frequently link back to other discussions, and so on.

To limit how deep I get drawn in, I try to hold back from reflexively clicking links in comments and posts. Instead I just hover over them (or press and hold on a touchscreen) to view the address, hoping to get a general idea of what they're about and whether I'm familiar with them (and occasionally saving them to a folder if I think I might want them later).

Recently, though, I've noticed that LW is replacing off-site links with indirect links, passed through the domain api.viglink.com. This means I can't just glance at the URL to see where it points; I have to either open it or paste it into the address bar and scroll through it looking for the embedded URL of the actual link. Is it important for it to do that? Is there a way to turn that function off, or a browser extension (preferrably Android-compatible) to reverse it?

(Initially posted about here in the current open thread, but I decided I wanted it to be more visible.)
Weekly LW Meetups: Atlanta, Austin, Berlin, Brussels, Cambridge MA, Cincinnati, Durham, Vancouver, Washington DC
by FrankAdamek — 2013-04-26T19:11:13.339Z

This summary was posted to LW Main on April 19th. The following week's summary is here.

There are upcoming irregularly scheduled Less Wrong meetups in:

April Atlanta Meetup! Friday, April 19th: 19 April 2013 07:00PM
Durham/RTLW HPMoR discussion, ch. 56-60: 20 April 2013 12:30PM
Brussels meetup: 20 April 2013 01:00PM
Austin, TX: 20 April 2019 01:30PM
Vancouver CFAR Materials: Bayes practice!: 20 April 2013 03:00PM
Berlin Social Meetup: 20 April 2013 07:30PM
Washington DC books meetup: 21 April 2013 03:00PM
Cincinnati near-Schelling day: 21 April 2013 04:00PM
London Meetup, 28th April: 28 April 2013 02:00PM
Moscow, Measurements: 28 April 2013 04:00PM
Munich Meetup: 04 May 2013 03:00PM
Vienna meetup #3: 18 May 2013 04:00PM
Berlin Social Meetup: 15 June 2013 05:00PM

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:

Cambridge (MA): The Meaning Of Life For Beginners: 21 April 2013 02:00PM

Locations with regularly scheduled meetups: Austin, Berkeley, Cambridge, MA, Cambridge UK, Madison WI, Melbourne, Mountain View, New York, Ohio, Oxford, Portland, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Toronto, 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 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 meet...