Our visions of future events don’t include a lot of detail. In the Sept. 7 Science, Gilbert and Wilson discuss the many resulting biases: We feel better when we imagine going to the theater than to the dentist, but we feel better imagining either event on a sunny day than on a rainy day, or when we are well rather than ill. … When people who have missed trains in the past are asked to imagine missing a train in the future, they tend to remember their worst train-missing experience rather than their typical train-missing experience. … which leads them to overestimate how painful the next train-missing experience will be.
The following is conversation that once occurred on IRC, from memory:
Eliezer: I usually avoid trying to predict "What comes after the Singularity" because most scenarios are so unimaginative as to not even be interesting failures.X: I want to spend a million years having sex with catgirls.E: No you don't.X: Yes I do.E: No you don't. You'd get bored after two weeks.X: I could modify my mind so as not to get bored.E: Oh HELL no. This is why you should need some equivalent of a driver's license to modify your own brain circuitry.
*Two years later.*
X: I've been thinking about it, and I don't want to spend a million years having sex with catgirls.E: HA! You said you wanted to have sex with catgirls for a MILLION YEARSE: It only took you TWO YEARS to change your mindE: And you DIDN'T EVEN HAVE SEX WITH ANY CATGIRLS
I agree with Stuart. The last sentence took me aback, because it seemed rather disconnected from what preceded it. I still fail to see the logical connection.
Stuart, I have no idea what you are talking about.
I was, of course, talking about the history of summerian architecture. ^_^
No, all I was saying, is that I don't think the sentenceTo a large extent the main things that matter about the future are how many people there are and how rich they are, so they can buy all those details that matterderives from the rest of the post. I can see it is connected with the rest of the post, but its not a direct conclusion, far from it. The examples I gave were situations where greater wealth, or the equivalent "ability to purshase more and better options", did not lead to improvement. These examples were closely connected with the quoted bit of your post, to show that your conclusion did not derive naturally from that.
Michael, I thought my last sentence was quite in context. The whole post is about misjudging values when considering the future.
I'm sorry there Robin, but I don't agree. The sentence is:
To a large extent the main things that matter about the future are how many people there are and how rich they are, so they can buy all those details that matter.
There are many assumptions there, not justified by the previous text. Just to pick on the "convenient - inconvenient" locations, our current wealth has enlarged the circle of convenient locations, but hugely expanded the circle of inconvenient locations (while nibbling away at the impossible locations). This makes some people very unhappy.
Even the weaker statement "people don't know now what they will like later, so we should ensure that they have the most options in future", is not fully justified by the text: "inescapability", for instance, was mentioned positively. And what is inescapability but a restriction of options?
It may be that greater wealth is the most important thing to make people happy in future, but this is not justified in the post.
Just FYI, today's subject was programmed before I saw what Robin had written...
I don't think that people's future visualizations lack detail, so much as they are completely divorced from their extensions, being evaluated purely as neat-sounding words. Similarly, no religion has ever invented a Heaven where any sane person would want to live, if you were to visualize the day-to-day experience rather than focusing on the nice-sounding words.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I agree with Michael about the last sentence. However, I wasn't too offended because the claim was rather abstract and I don't see it leading to particularly adverse policies (for example, it doesn't recommend a policy leading to either more or fewer people, or a specific way to build or distribute wealth for those people).
Given people remember 'yesterday' along with their best and worst experiences, if you've just had a successful cooperative experience with someone, it seems to make sense to follow that up with another project quickly, because the person will have a positive recent memory of working with you. This possible process might explain the idea of people being 'on a role' or being a 'rising star'. It might also explain, at least to a degree, victory disease.
With individual projects, a positive recent experience might encourage more effort, and might explain, to a degree, the feeling of flow, and perhaps at an extreme, mania.
If you've had a bad experience, should you immediately follow it up with at least an average experience, in order to replace your negative recent memory?
If you wish to have an accurate view of things, should you balance your best with your worst experiences? In other words, if you have an unusually positive experience, should you seek an unusually negative experience, so that the extremes cancel each other out and the average has the most sway in your mind? Not sure if that would work, or would be wise.
Robin: I really think that the last sentence of this post is what Hopefully has been complaining about, e.g. gratuitous insertion of your preferences or values into a topic where they only serve as a distraction.
The following is conversation that once occurred on IRC, from memory:
Eliezer: I usually avoid trying to predict "What comes after the Singularity" because most scenarios are so unimaginative as to not even be interesting failures.X: I want to spend a million years having sex with catgirls.E: No you don't.X: Yes I do.E: No you don't. You'd get bored after two weeks.X: I could modify my mind so as not to get bored.E: Oh HELL no. This is why you should need some equivalent of a driver's license to modify your own brain circuitry.
*Two years later.*
X: I've been thinking about it, and I don't want to spend a million years having sex with catgirls.E: HA! You said you wanted to have sex with catgirls for a MILLION YEARSE: It only took you TWO YEARS to change your mindE: And you DIDN'T EVEN HAVE SEX WITH ANY CATGIRLS
Robin, close your eyes and visualize trying to simultaneously handle forty virgins. Forty virgins.
umm... different Stuart
72 sounds better to me. Though after eternity I guess I'd wonder what the difference was.
I agree with Stuart. The last sentence took me aback, because it seemed rather disconnected from what preceded it. I still fail to see the logical connection.
Stuart, I have no idea what you are talking about.
I was, of course, talking about the history of summerian architecture. ^_^
No, all I was saying, is that I don't think the sentenceTo a large extent the main things that matter about the future are how many people there are and how rich they are, so they can buy all those details that matterderives from the rest of the post. I can see it is connected with the rest of the post, but its not a direct conclusion, far from it. The examples I gave were situations where greater wealth, or the equivalent "ability to purshase more and better options", did not lead to improvement. These examples were closely connected with the quoted bit of your post, to show that your conclusion did not derive naturally from that.
Stuart, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Eliezer, I thought the "forty virgins" Heaven might be livable.
Michael, I thought my last sentence was quite in context. The whole post is about misjudging values when considering the future.
I'm sorry there Robin, but I don't agree. The sentence is:
To a large extent the main things that matter about the future are how many people there are and how rich they are, so they can buy all those details that matter.
There are many assumptions there, not justified by the previous text. Just to pick on the "convenient - inconvenient" locations, our current wealth has enlarged the circle of convenient locations, but hugely expanded the circle of inconvenient locations (while nibbling away at the impossible locations). This makes some people very unhappy.
Even the weaker statement "people don't know now what they will like later, so we should ensure that they have the most options in future", is not fully justified by the text: "inescapability", for instance, was mentioned positively. And what is inescapability but a restriction of options?
It may be that greater wealth is the most important thing to make people happy in future, but this is not justified in the post.
Just FYI, today's subject was programmed before I saw what Robin had written...
I don't think that people's future visualizations lack detail, so much as they are completely divorced from their extensions, being evaluated purely as neat-sounding words. Similarly, no religion has ever invented a Heaven where any sane person would want to live, if you were to visualize the day-to-day experience rather than focusing on the nice-sounding words.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I agree with Michael about the last sentence. However, I wasn't too offended because the claim was rather abstract and I don't see it leading to particularly adverse policies (for example, it doesn't recommend a policy leading to either more or fewer people, or a specific way to build or distribute wealth for those people).
"Having George Bush as president has made me much *more* unhappy than I originally thought it would. I must have overcome bias! Yay me!!"
It seems that this is a case of over-overcoming bias.
Try again.
Having George Bush as president has made me much *more* unhappy than I originally thought it would. I must have overcome bias! Yay me!!
Michael, I thought my last sentence was quite in context. The whole post is about misjudging values when considering the future.
Wonderful post!
Given people remember 'yesterday' along with their best and worst experiences, if you've just had a successful cooperative experience with someone, it seems to make sense to follow that up with another project quickly, because the person will have a positive recent memory of working with you. This possible process might explain the idea of people being 'on a role' or being a 'rising star'. It might also explain, at least to a degree, victory disease.
With individual projects, a positive recent experience might encourage more effort, and might explain, to a degree, the feeling of flow, and perhaps at an extreme, mania.
If you've had a bad experience, should you immediately follow it up with at least an average experience, in order to replace your negative recent memory?
If you wish to have an accurate view of things, should you balance your best with your worst experiences? In other words, if you have an unusually positive experience, should you seek an unusually negative experience, so that the extremes cancel each other out and the average has the most sway in your mind? Not sure if that would work, or would be wise.
Robin: I really think that the last sentence of this post is what Hopefully has been complaining about, e.g. gratuitous insertion of your preferences or values into a topic where they only serve as a distraction.