I’m strongly tempted to quit blogging for a while, to free up time for more ambitious projects. My two year anniversary is coming up in a few weeks. If I quit then it would be nice to have some sense of completion. Toward that end, are there any post topics you’d like to request? Perhaps posts I once promised or at least suggested I might someday make?
What do you think of drawing a parallel between the various philosophies of probability: the frequentist, subjectivist, logical, or propensity theory, with the debate about on whether economics is a science. In other words, are there parts of economics that are more frequentist, other more subectivist, etc...?
Robin doesn't appear to believe that he's supported his claims:
I won't support all these claims here; for today, let's just talk politics.
I'd be interested in seeing the following claims supported:
<ul><li>Bedrooms aren't about Sleep<li>Marriage isn't about Romance<li>Charity isn't about Helping<li>Medicine isn't about Health<li>Consulting isn't about Advice<li>School isn't about Learning<li>Research isn't about Progress</ul>
If Robin supports his "School isn't about Learning" claim, I would also be interested in hearing how that affects his role as a college professor.
Anna Salamon: (3) OB has mostly discussed rationality as individually accurate map-making. I'd love to hear any mechanisms (e.g., Idea Futures, or guarding against group polarization) for good map making as a community of realistic rationalists, or any starting-points for thinking up such mechanisms. (4) You've discussed how beliefs (and actions) are like clothes. [. . .]Bayesians, and perhaps other types of rationalists, aspire to accurate and precise map-making assuming that two or more accurate and precise maps are qualitatively identical, i.e., identical in every way except for being one and the same. (Of course, some Bayesians might aspire to have accurate and precise maps that properly contain other maps, to be domain masters.) This, I'm fairly sure, is more "realistic" than a community of rationalists wearing shirts expressing the falsehood, if their psychological world lines are distinguishable, "My map is numerically identical [one and the same] with every other rationalist."
My request: how about an update on your old piece: Fourteen Wild Ideas, Five Of Which Are True!
I'd be interested in- how would you rank these ideas now (in terms of likelihood of being true)- what do you think, now, is the probability that 5 or more are true?- if you wrote that piece again, would you use the same 14, or are there any you'd drop and, if so, what would you replace them with?
I'll be sorry to see you go, though I look forward to your longer projects. Perhaps you could post occasionally, when inspired, to keep the OB community?
As to last post topics:
(1) I'd like your summary of: (a) what aspects of bias and rationality OB most hasn't hit, and (b) what lines of evidence or avenues of attack might help here.
(2) I'm interested in the thoughts in your Matrix essay and in your exchanges with Eliezer on hypocrisy, and I'm puzzled by the underlying issues. I'd love to hear anything more you have to say along those lines.
(3) OB has mostly discussed rationality as individually accurate map-making. I'd love to hear any mechanisms (e.g., Idea Futures, or guarding against group polarization) for good map making as a community of realistic rationalists, or any starting-points for thinking up such mechanisms.
(4) You've discussed how beliefs (and actions) are like clothes. I'd love your summary of the main ways clothes behave. I.e., if beliefs aren't about having accurate maps, and actions aren't about moving instrumentally toward goals, what are they about? What are the main dynamics by which they propagate?
@John Maxwell: That post of Robin's was a summary/outline. Read his other posts for the detail you're seeking, or offer a specific examples of claims he has not explained well enough.
First, Robin, have you ever thought of going on a twice-a-week blogging schedule? That's what I've done, and it's done wonders for my ability to spend time on other things. I create the illusion of continuity by putting timers on when my posts will go up.
But if you do choose to stop, I'd like to see you expand on your "politics isn't about policy" stuff, perhaps with recommendations on how to learn more about it.
@Eliezer: I do check the names on OB posts, I tend to think of you and Robin as the "Overcoming Bias guys"--at risk of offending other team members, you're the best guys on the site, losing either of you would be a big loss.
So you abandon the Hansonians to their fate at the hands of the Yudkowskyites, do you?
Well, if you must. But I'll say I'm not happy about it. I vote for one last post on why Eliezer's view of the Singularity is nonsense and yours is the best. I found those highly entertaining.
Dear Robin Hanson:
It has been bothering me more and more lately that there isn't a real-money, large-scale idea futures/prediction market.
Do you have any ideas or plans for how to make such a thing real?
Regards,
Zooko
What do you think of drawing a parallel between the various philosophies of probability: the frequentist, subjectivist, logical, or propensity theory, with the debate about on whether economics is a science. In other words, are there parts of economics that are more frequentist, other more subectivist, etc...?
@Sociology Graduate Student:
This is pretty much unrelated, but this is an interesting blog post on the applications of sociology.
@Sociology Graduate Student:
Robin doesn't appear to believe that he's supported his claims:
I won't support all these claims here; for today, let's just talk politics.
I'd be interested in seeing the following claims supported:
<ul><li>Bedrooms aren't about Sleep<li>Marriage isn't about Romance<li>Charity isn't about Helping<li>Medicine isn't about Health<li>Consulting isn't about Advice<li>School isn't about Learning<li>Research isn't about Progress</ul>
If Robin supports his "School isn't about Learning" claim, I would also be interested in hearing how that affects his role as a college professor.
I would hate to see you stop blogging.
I would like to see the point/counterpoint with Tyler C.
Anna Salamon: (3) OB has mostly discussed rationality as individually accurate map-making. I'd love to hear any mechanisms (e.g., Idea Futures, or guarding against group polarization) for good map making as a community of realistic rationalists, or any starting-points for thinking up such mechanisms. (4) You've discussed how beliefs (and actions) are like clothes. [. . .]Bayesians, and perhaps other types of rationalists, aspire to accurate and precise map-making assuming that two or more accurate and precise maps are qualitatively identical, i.e., identical in every way except for being one and the same. (Of course, some Bayesians might aspire to have accurate and precise maps that properly contain other maps, to be domain masters.) This, I'm fairly sure, is more "realistic" than a community of rationalists wearing shirts expressing the falsehood, if their psychological world lines are distinguishable, "My map is numerically identical [one and the same] with every other rationalist."
I second botogol, although I'd like to see numerical probabilities assigned to each item individually.
Robin, sorry to see you go..
My request: how about an update on your old piece: Fourteen Wild Ideas, Five Of Which Are True!
I'd be interested in- how would you rank these ideas now (in terms of likelihood of being true)- what do you think, now, is the probability that 5 or more are true?- if you wrote that piece again, would you use the same 14, or are there any you'd drop and, if so, what would you replace them with?
I'll be sorry to see you go, though I look forward to your longer projects. Perhaps you could post occasionally, when inspired, to keep the OB community?
As to last post topics:
(1) I'd like your summary of: (a) what aspects of bias and rationality OB most hasn't hit, and (b) what lines of evidence or avenues of attack might help here.
(2) I'm interested in the thoughts in your Matrix essay and in your exchanges with Eliezer on hypocrisy, and I'm puzzled by the underlying issues. I'd love to hear anything more you have to say along those lines.
(3) OB has mostly discussed rationality as individually accurate map-making. I'd love to hear any mechanisms (e.g., Idea Futures, or guarding against group polarization) for good map making as a community of realistic rationalists, or any starting-points for thinking up such mechanisms.
(4) You've discussed how beliefs (and actions) are like clothes. I'd love your summary of the main ways clothes behave. I.e., if beliefs aren't about having accurate maps, and actions aren't about moving instrumentally toward goals, what are they about? What are the main dynamics by which they propagate?
I'd be interested in hearing more about why you think blogging limits your ability to pursue your ambitious projects. Is it just a matter of time?
Ways of improving your life through overcoming bias.
An evaluation of Eliezer's views of the Singularity and friendly AI.
Biases of economists.
A clarification of your view on advanced nanotechnology, if you really don't mean to dismiss it.
@John Maxwell: That post of Robin's was a summary/outline. Read his other posts for the detail you're seeking, or offer a specific examples of claims he has not explained well enough.
First, Robin, have you ever thought of going on a twice-a-week blogging schedule? That's what I've done, and it's done wonders for my ability to spend time on other things. I create the illusion of continuity by putting timers on when my posts will go up.
But if you do choose to stop, I'd like to see you expand on your "politics isn't about policy" stuff, perhaps with recommendations on how to learn more about it.
@Eliezer: I do check the names on OB posts, I tend to think of you and Robin as the "Overcoming Bias guys"--at risk of offending other team members, you're the best guys on the site, losing either of you would be a big loss.
So you abandon the Hansonians to their fate at the hands of the Yudkowskyites, do you?
Well, if you must. But I'll say I'm not happy about it. I vote for one last post on why Eliezer's view of the Singularity is nonsense and yours is the best. I found those highly entertaining.
At some point the talking has to stop and action begin.
I'd be interested in knowing what you were going to do next as well.