7 ms·

If you'd rather not just accept your current level of cognitive bias, the web site Less Wrong has a bunch of articles by and for people trying to become less wr

by pjscott 14y ago

If you'd rather not just accept your current level of cognitive bias, the web site Less Wrong has a bunch of articles by and for people trying to become less wrong about things. Anecdotally, I've noticed that people I know via the Less Wrong community tend to be decidedly less full of crap than average, so it seems to work. For example, here's a series of articles on the subject of avoiding excessive attachment to false beliefs, which I found to be generally entertaining and insightful: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/How_To_Actually_Change_Your_Mind http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/How_To_Actually_Change_Your_M... Any of those articles are a good place to start, so don't be intimidated by the amount of stuff there.

Apocryphon 14y ago
Unfortunately, sometimes it's those who are the most logical, or think of themselves as most logical, that fall into the most glaring of logical traps: (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/LessWrong http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/LessWrong (specifically the basilisk drama)
- gwillen 14y ago
  Actually, one of the coolest things, to me, about LessWrong, is the fact that the community as a whole is arguably more rational than the founder. Eliezer's own LessWrong comments have been downvoted many times, and a number of those were during the "basilisk" debacle. Many of the site's regulars were on the side of sanity in that incident. So I think it's fair to tar Eliezer himself for that incident, but I don't think it's a good indictment of the site's community as a whole.
  - Cushman 14y ago
    > the "basilisk" debacle Hadn't heard of this, just read the RationalWiki article-- and it is fabulous. LW literally derived religion and then took that seriously enough to cover it up. That's fantastic.
    - danielweber 14y ago
      That was fascinating. "Reading the sequences" also gives off this vibe that feels like ordering Scientology texts.
      - Cushman 14y ago
        As does the pervasive use of acronyms. Not to harp on it too much, since I don't think they're bad people, but there's a cultish vibe for sure.
      - roguecoder 14y ago
        Much of the practice of Scientology is based on theater exercises designed to do exactly the same thing as LessWrong. The similarities are unsurprising. Personally, I have yet to see any evidence suggesting rationality is even desirable. The most irrational people, selfless, story-oriented, tolerante of multiple conflicting subjective "realities", interested in the feelings and passions of people around them no matter what they are, are also those I most enjoy interacting with. Everyone I have met who strives for rationality is at least a bit of a prick.
        planetguy 14y ago
        > Personally, I have yet to see any evidence suggesting rationality is even desirable Interesting idea. I think a certain amount of rationality is desirable -- people of below median or even near-median rationality go round making really stupid decisions which screw up their lives. On the other hand, once you've stopped hiding from imaginary demons, buying magnetic charm bracelets and drinking venti caramel frappucinos, further effort in becoming more rational may be severely diminishing returns. How would it really help me if I were more rational and less subject to cognitive biases? I don't think it would help me much in making my day-to-day decisions. I honestly don't think it would help me in my work, either. It might well help in tackling really, really difficult questions where it's extremely difficult to disentangle your own feelings from the correct answers -- things like "What is the probability that humans will one day achieve immortality", or "What is the fairest possible tax system?" But would answering those questions actually enhance my life? Humans will achieve immortality, or not, regardless of whether I correctly predict the probability circa 2012, and even if I did come up with the fairest possible tax system I have no chance of actually getting it implemented, so it would just cause me frustration. The people who did really great things in history -- whoever you might choose as your examples -- did they achieve it by being significantly more rational than everyone else? Not really, no. They did it by achieving some baseline level of rationality and then being extremely good at other stuff.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
coffeemug 14y ago
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end" - Spock Anecdotally I found that the Less Wrong community tends to be decidedly more full of crap than average. In the same vein as spiritual materialism[1], many people that engage in a bias witch-hunt seem to be falling prey to "logical materialism", where the whole exercise turns into people deluding themselves into thinking they're somehow "better" than others because they're less full of crap than average. It's good to know thyself, but it's no use if your knowledge isn't tempered by wisdom, and you're not going to get that by reading blog posts about cognitive biases online, no matter how good the posts. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_materialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_materialism
- Cushman 14y ago
  It's nice to know I'm not the only one who thinks this. I think it's really telling that a community which is ostensibly concerned with the science of achieving desires spends so much time focused on the "problem" of akrasia. It's also heartbreaking to see intelligent people getting so excited about ideas like cryonics and personality uploading. I mean, they're interesting things to talk about, but a lot of people on LW seem to actually think they might get to live forever. It's kinda sad.
  - ableal 14y ago
    > actually think they might get to live forever And they aren't horrified at the prospect of that being possible? Not much thinking going on there, I suppose.
    - Cushman 14y ago
      Eliezer Yudkowsky's younger brother died in 2004 and it inspired a lengthy email thread about the subject.[0] I expect it is not so much about wishing not to die, which even a transhumanist must admit is at least no worse than living, but wishing not to have loved ones die. Truly tragic. [0] http://yudkowsky.net/other/yehuda http://yudkowsky.net/other/yehuda
    - D_Alex 14y ago

by pjscott 14y ago

Apocryphon 14y ago

Unfortunately, sometimes it's those who are the most logical, or think of themselves as most logical, that fall into the most glaring of logical traps: (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/LessWrong http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/LessWrong (specifically the basilisk drama)

gwillen 14y ago
Actually, one of the coolest things, to me, about LessWrong, is the fact that the community as a whole is arguably more rational than the founder. Eliezer's own LessWrong comments have been downvoted many times, and a number of those were during the "basilisk" debacle. Many of the site's regulars were on the side of sanity in that incident. So I think it's fair to tar Eliezer himself for that incident, but I don't think it's a good indictment of the site's community as a whole.
- Cushman 14y ago
  > the "basilisk" debacle Hadn't heard of this, just read the RationalWiki article-- and it is fabulous. LW literally derived religion and then took that seriously enough to cover it up. That's fantastic.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    That was fascinating. "Reading the sequences" also gives off this vibe that feels like ordering Scientology texts.
    - Cushman 14y ago
      As does the pervasive use of acronyms. Not to harp on it too much, since I don't think they're bad people, but there's a cultish vibe for sure.
    - roguecoder 14y ago
      Much of the practice of Scientology is based on theater exercises designed to do exactly the same thing as LessWrong. The similarities are unsurprising. Personally, I have yet to see any evidence suggesting rationality is even desirable. The most irrational people, selfless, story-oriented, tolerante of multiple conflicting subjective "realities", interested in the feelings and passions of people around them no matter what they are, are also those I most enjoy interacting with. Everyone I have met who strives for rationality is at least a bit of a prick.
      - planetguy 14y ago
        > Personally, I have yet to see any evidence suggesting rationality is even desirable Interesting idea. I think a certain amount of rationality is desirable -- people of below median or even near-median rationality go round making really stupid decisions which screw up their lives. On the other hand, once you've stopped hiding from imaginary demons, buying magnetic charm bracelets and drinking venti caramel frappucinos, further effort in becoming more rational may be severely diminishing returns. How would it really help me if I were more rational and less subject to cognitive biases? I don't think it would help me much in making my day-to-day decisions. I honestly don't think it would help me in my work, either. It might well help in tackling really, really difficult questions where it's extremely difficult to disentangle your own feelings from the correct answers -- things like "What is the probability that humans will one day achieve immortality", or "What is the fairest possible tax system?" But would answering those questions actually enhance my life? Humans will achieve immortality, or not, regardless of whether I correctly predict the probability circa 2012, and even if I did come up with the fairest possible tax system I have no chance of actually getting it implemented, so it would just cause me frustration. The people who did really great things in history -- whoever you might choose as your examples -- did they achieve it by being significantly more rational than everyone else? Not really, no. They did it by achieving some baseline level of rationality and then being extremely good at other stuff.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

coffeemug 14y ago

"Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end" - Spock Anecdotally I found that the Less Wrong community tends to be decidedly more full of crap than average. In the same vein as spiritual materialism[1], many people that engage in a bias witch-hunt seem to be falling prey to "logical materialism", where the whole exercise turns into people deluding themselves into thinking they're somehow "better" than others because they're less full of crap than average. It's good to know thyself, but it's no use if your knowledge isn't tempered by wisdom, and you're not going to get that by reading blog posts about cognitive biases online, no matter how good the posts. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_materialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_materialism

Cushman 14y ago
It's nice to know I'm not the only one who thinks this. I think it's really telling that a community which is ostensibly concerned with the science of achieving desires spends so much time focused on the "problem" of akrasia. It's also heartbreaking to see intelligent people getting so excited about ideas like cryonics and personality uploading. I mean, they're interesting things to talk about, but a lot of people on LW seem to actually think they might get to live forever. It's kinda sad.
- ableal 14y ago
  > actually think they might get to live forever And they aren't horrified at the prospect of that being possible? Not much thinking going on there, I suppose.
  - Cushman 14y ago
    Eliezer Yudkowsky's younger brother died in 2004 and it inspired a lengthy email thread about the subject.[0] I expect it is not so much about wishing not to die, which even a transhumanist must admit is at least no worse than living, but wishing not to have loved ones die. Truly tragic. [0] http://yudkowsky.net/other/yehuda http://yudkowsky.net/other/yehuda
  - D_Alex 14y ago