metameta   109

« earlier    

Eliminative materialism - Wikipedia
Eliminative materialism (also called eliminativism) is the claim that people's common-sense understanding of the mind (or folk psychology) is false and that certain classes of mental states that most people believe in do not exist.[1] It is a materialist position in the philosophy of mind. Some supporters of eliminativism argue that no coherent neural basis will be found for many everyday psychological concepts such as belief or desire, since they are poorly defined. Rather, they argue that psychological concepts of behaviour and experience should be judged by how well they reduce to the biological level.[2] Other versions entail the non-existence of conscious mental states such as pain and visual perceptions.[3]

Eliminativism about a class of entities is the view that that class of entities does not exist.[4] For example, materialism tends to be eliminativist about the soul; modern chemists are eliminativist about phlogiston; and modern physicists are eliminativist about the existence of luminiferous aether. Eliminative materialism is the relatively new (1960s–1970s) idea that certain classes of mental entities that common sense takes for granted, such as beliefs, desires, and the subjective sensation of pain, do not exist.[5][6] The most common versions are eliminativism about propositional attitudes, as expressed by Paul and Patricia Churchland,[7] and eliminativism about qualia (subjective interpretations about particular instances of subjective experience), as expressed by Daniel Dennett and Georges Rey.[3] These philosophers often appeal to an introspection illusion.

In the context of materialist understandings of psychology, eliminativism stands in opposition to reductive materialism which argues that mental states as conventionally understood do exist, and that they directly correspond to the physical state of the nervous system.[8][need quotation to verify] An intermediate position is revisionary materialism, which will often argue that the mental state in question will prove to be somewhat reducible to physical phenomena—with some changes needed to the common sense concept.

Since eliminative materialism claims that future research will fail to find a neuronal basis for various mental phenomena, it must necessarily wait for science to progress further. One might question the position on these grounds, but other philosophers like Churchland argue that eliminativism is often necessary in order to open the minds of thinkers to new evidence and better explanations.[8]
concept  conceptual-vocab  philosophy  ideology  thinking  metameta  weird  realness  psychology  cog-psych  neurons  neuro  brain-scan  reduction  complex-systems  cybernetics  wiki  reference  parallax  truth  dennett  within-without  the-self  subjective-objective  absolute-relative  deep-materialism  new-religion  identity  analytical-holistic  systematic-ad-hoc  science  theory-practice  theory-of-mind  applicability-prereqs  nihil  lexical 
april 2018 by nhaliday
Transcendentals - Wikipedia
The transcendentals (Latin: transcendentalia) are the properties of being that correspond to three aspects of the human field of interest and are their ideals; science (truth), the arts (beauty) and religion (goodness).[citation needed] Philosophical disciplines that study them are logic, aesthetics and ethics.

See also: Proto-Indo-European religion, Asha, and Satya

Parmenides first inquired of the properties co-extensive with being.[1] Socrates, spoken through Plato, then followed (see Form of the Good).

Aristotle's substance theory (being a substance belongs to being qua being) has been interpreted as a theory of transcendentals.[2] Aristotle discusses only unity ("One") explicitly because it is the only transcendental intrinsically related to being, whereas truth and goodness relate to rational creatures.[3]

In the Middle Ages, Catholic philosophers elaborated the thought that there exist transcendentals (transcendentalia) and that they transcended each of the ten Aristotelian categories.[4] A doctrine of the transcendentality of the good was formulated by Albert the Great.[5] His pupil, Saint Thomas Aquinas, posited five transcendentals: res, unum, aliquid, bonum, verum; or "thing", "one", "something", "good", and "true".[6] Saint Thomas derives the five explicitly as transcendentals,[7] though in some cases he follows the typical list of the transcendentals consisting of the One, the Good, and the True. The transcendentals are ontologically one and thus they are convertible: e.g., where there is truth, there is beauty and goodness also.

In Christian theology the transcendentals are treated in relation to theology proper, the doctrine of God. The transcendentals, according to Christian doctrine, can be described as the ultimate desires of man. Man ultimately strives for perfection, which takes form through the desire for perfect attainment of the transcendentals. The Catholic Church teaches that God is Himself truth, goodness, and beauty, as indicated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.[8] Each transcends the limitations of place and time, and is rooted in being. The transcendentals are not contingent upon cultural diversity, religious doctrine, or personal ideologies, but are the objective properties of all that exists.
concept  conceptual-vocab  wiki  reference  philosophy  europe  the-great-west-whale  the-classics  history  iron-age  mediterranean  gavisti  religion  christianity  theos  truth  science  beauty  art  logic  aesthetics  morality  ethics  formal-values  metameta  virtu  egalitarianism-hierarchy  roots  deep-materialism  new-religion  big-peeps  canon  polarization  reason  occident  meaningness  courage  gnosis-logos  good-evil  subjective-objective  absolute-relative  parallax  forms-instances  is-ought  essence-existence 
march 2018 by nhaliday
Unaligned optimization processes as a general problem for society
TL;DR: There are lots of systems in society which seem to fit the pattern of “the incentives for this system are a pretty good approximation of what we actually want, so the system produces good results until it gets powerful, at which point it gets terrible results.”

...

Here are some more places where this idea could come into play:

- Marketing—humans try to buy things that will make our lives better, but our process for determining this is imperfect. A more powerful optimization process produces extremely good advertising to sell us things that aren’t actually going to make our lives better.
- Politics—we get extremely effective demagogues who pit us against our essential good values.
- Lobbying—as industries get bigger, the optimization process to choose great lobbyists for industries gets larger, but the process to make regulators robust doesn’t get correspondingly stronger. So regulatory capture gets worse and worse. Rent-seeking gets more and more significant.
- Online content—in a weaker internet, sites can’t be addictive except via being good content. In the modern internet, people can feel addicted to things that they wish they weren’t addicted to. We didn’t use to have the social expertise to make clickbait nearly as well as we do it today.
- News—Hyperpartisan news sources are much more worth it if distribution is cheaper and the market is bigger. News sources get an advantage from being truthful, but as society gets bigger, this advantage gets proportionally smaller.

...

For these reasons, I think it’s quite plausible that humans are fundamentally unable to have a “good” society with a population greater than some threshold, particularly if all these people have access to modern technology. Humans don’t have the rigidity to maintain social institutions in the face of that kind of optimization process. I think it is unlikely but possible (10%?) that this threshold population is smaller than the current population of the US, and that the US will crumble due to the decay of these institutions in the next fifty years if nothing totally crazy happens.
ratty  thinking  metabuch  reflection  metameta  big-yud  clever-rats  ai-control  ai  risk  scale  quality  ability-competence  network-structure  capitalism  randy-ayndy  civil-liberty  marketing  institutions  economics  political-econ  politics  polisci  advertising  rent-seeking  government  coordination  internet  attention  polarization  media  truth  unintended-consequences  alt-inst  efficiency  altruism  society  usa  decentralized  rhetoric  prediction  population  incentives  intervention  criminal-justice  property-rights  redistribution  taxes  externalities  science  monetary-fiscal  public-goodish  zero-positive-sum  markets  cost-benefit  regulation  regularizer  order-disorder  flux-stasis  shift  smoothness  phase-transition  power  definite-planning  optimism  pessimism  homo-hetero  interests  eden-heaven  telos-atelos  threat-modeling  alignment 
february 2018 by nhaliday
All models are wrong - Wikipedia
Box repeated the aphorism in a paper that was published in the proceedings of a 1978 statistics workshop.[2] The paper contains a section entitled "All models are wrong but some are useful". The section is copied below.

Now it would be very remarkable if any system existing in the real world could be exactly represented by any simple model. However, cunningly chosen parsimonious models often do provide remarkably useful approximations. For example, the law PV = RT relating pressure P, volume V and temperature T of an "ideal" gas via a constant R is not exactly true for any real gas, but it frequently provides a useful approximation and furthermore its structure is informative since it springs from a physical view of the behavior of gas molecules.

For such a model there is no need to ask the question "Is the model true?". If "truth" is to be the "whole truth" the answer must be "No". The only question of interest is "Is the model illuminating and useful?".
thinking  metabuch  metameta  map-territory  models  accuracy  wire-guided  truth  philosophy  stats  data-science  methodology  lens  wiki  reference  complex-systems  occam  parsimony  science  nibble  hi-order-bits  info-dynamics  the-trenches  meta:science  physics  fluid  thermo  stat-mech  applicability-prereqs  theory-practice 
august 2017 by nhaliday
Logic | West Hunter
All the time I hear some public figure saying that if we ban or allow X, then logically we have to ban or allow Y, even though there are obvious practical reasons for X and obvious practical reasons against Y.

No, we don’t.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005864.html
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/002053.html

compare: https://pinboard.in/u:nhaliday/b:190b299cf04a

Small Change Good, Big Change Bad?: https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/02/small-change-good-big-change-bad.html
And on reflection it occurs to me that this is actually THE standard debate about change: some see small changes and either like them or aren’t bothered enough to advocate what it would take to reverse them, while others imagine such trends continuing long enough to result in very large and disturbing changes, and then suggest stronger responses.

For example, on increased immigration some point to the many concrete benefits immigrants now provide. Others imagine that large cumulative immigration eventually results in big changes in culture and political equilibria. On fertility, some wonder if civilization can survive in the long run with declining population, while others point out that population should rise for many decades, and few endorse the policies needed to greatly increase fertility. On genetic modification of humans, some ask why not let doctors correct obvious defects, while others imagine parents eventually editing kid genes mainly to max kid career potential. On oil some say that we should start preparing for the fact that we will eventually run out, while others say that we keep finding new reserves to replace the ones we use.

...

If we consider any parameter, such as typical degree of mind wandering, we are unlikely to see the current value as exactly optimal. So if we give people the benefit of the doubt to make local changes in their interest, we may accept that this may result in a recent net total change we don’t like. We may figure this is the price we pay to get other things we value more, and we we know that it can be very expensive to limit choices severely.

But even though we don’t see the current value as optimal, we also usually see the optimal value as not terribly far from the current value. So if we can imagine current changes as part of a long term trend that eventually produces very large changes, we can become more alarmed and willing to restrict current changes. The key question is: when is that a reasonable response?

First, big concerns about big long term changes only make sense if one actually cares a lot about the long run. Given the usual high rates of return on investment, it is cheap to buy influence on the long term, compared to influence on the short term. Yet few actually devote much of their income to long term investments. This raises doubts about the sincerity of expressed long term concerns.

Second, in our simplest models of the world good local choices also produce good long term choices. So if we presume good local choices, bad long term outcomes require non-simple elements, such as coordination, commitment, or myopia problems. Of course many such problems do exist. Even so, someone who claims to see a long term problem should be expected to identify specifically which such complexities they see at play. It shouldn’t be sufficient to just point to the possibility of such problems.

...

Fourth, many more processes and factors limit big changes, compared to small changes. For example, in software small changes are often trivial, while larger changes are nearly impossible, at least without starting again from scratch. Similarly, modest changes in mind wandering can be accomplished with minor attitude and habit changes, while extreme changes may require big brain restructuring, which is much harder because brains are complex and opaque. Recent changes in market structure may reduce the number of firms in each industry, but that doesn’t make it remotely plausible that one firm will eventually take over the entire economy. Projections of small changes into large changes need to consider the possibility of many such factors limiting large changes.

Fifth, while it can be reasonably safe to identify short term changes empirically, the longer term a forecast the more one needs to rely on theory, and the more different areas of expertise one must consider when constructing a relevant model of the situation. Beware a mere empirical projection into the long run, or a theory-based projection that relies on theories in only one area.

We should very much be open to the possibility of big bad long term changes, even in areas where we are okay with short term changes, or at least reluctant to sufficiently resist them. But we should also try to hold those who argue for the existence of such problems to relatively high standards. Their analysis should be about future times that we actually care about, and can at least roughly foresee. It should be based on our best theories of relevant subjects, and it should consider the possibility of factors that limit larger changes.

And instead of suggesting big ways to counter short term changes that might lead to long term problems, it is often better to identify markers to warn of larger problems. Then instead of acting in big ways now, we can make sure to track these warning markers, and ready ourselves to act more strongly if they appear.

Growth Is Change. So Is Death.: https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/03/growth-is-change-so-is-death.html
I see the same pattern when people consider long term futures. People can be quite philosophical about the extinction of humanity, as long as this is due to natural causes. Every species dies; why should humans be different? And few get bothered by humans making modest small-scale short-term modifications to their own lives or environment. We are mostly okay with people using umbrellas when it rains, moving to new towns to take new jobs, etc., digging a flood ditch after our yard floods, and so on. And the net social effect of many small changes is technological progress, economic growth, new fashions, and new social attitudes, all of which we tend to endorse in the short run.

Even regarding big human-caused changes, most don’t worry if changes happen far enough in the future. Few actually care much about the future past the lives of people they’ll meet in their own life. But for changes that happen within someone’s time horizon of caring, the bigger that changes get, and the longer they are expected to last, the more that people worry. And when we get to huge changes, such as taking apart the sun, a population of trillions, lifetimes of millennia, massive genetic modification of humans, robots replacing people, a complete loss of privacy, or revolutions in social attitudes, few are blasé, and most are quite wary.

This differing attitude regarding small local changes versus large global changes makes sense for parameters that tend to revert back to a mean. Extreme values then do justify extra caution, while changes within the usual range don’t merit much notice, and can be safely left to local choice. But many parameters of our world do not mostly revert back to a mean. They drift long distances over long times, in hard to predict ways that can be reasonably modeled as a basic trend plus a random walk.

This different attitude can also make sense for parameters that have two or more very different causes of change, one which creates frequent small changes, and another which creates rare huge changes. (Or perhaps a continuum between such extremes.) If larger sudden changes tend to cause more problems, it can make sense to be more wary of them. However, for most parameters most change results from many small changes, and even then many are quite wary of this accumulating into big change.

For people with a sharp time horizon of caring, they should be more wary of long-drifting parameters the larger the changes that would happen within their horizon time. This perspective predicts that the people who are most wary of big future changes are those with the longest time horizons, and who more expect lumpier change processes. This prediction doesn’t seem to fit well with my experience, however.

Those who most worry about big long term changes usually seem okay with small short term changes. Even when they accept that most change is small and that it accumulates into big change. This seems incoherent to me. It seems like many other near versus far incoherences, like expecting things to be simpler when you are far away from them, and more complex when you are closer. You should either become more wary of short term changes, knowing that this is how big longer term change happens, or you should be more okay with big long term change, seeing that as the legitimate result of the small short term changes you accept.

https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/03/growth-is-change-so-is-death.html#comment-3794966996
The point here is the gradual shifts of in-group beliefs are both natural and no big deal. Humans are built to readily do this, and forget they do this. But ultimately it is not a worry or concern.

But radical shifts that are big, whether near or far, portend strife and conflict. Either between groups or within them. If the shift is big enough, our intuition tells us our in-group will be in a fight. Alarms go off.
west-hunter  scitariat  discussion  rant  thinking  rationality  metabuch  critique  systematic-ad-hoc  analytical-holistic  metameta  ideology  philosophy  info-dynamics  aphorism  darwinian  prudence  pragmatic  insight  tradition  s:*  2016  multi  gnon  right-wing  formal-values  values  slippery-slope  axioms  alt-inst  heuristic  anglosphere  optimate  flux-stasis  flexibility  paleocon  polisci  universalism-particularism  ratty  hanson  list  examples  migration  fertility  intervention  demographics  population  biotech  enhancement  energy-resources  biophysical-econ  nature  military  inequality  age-generation  time  ideas  debate  meta:rhetoric  local-global  long-short-run  gnosis-logos  gavisti  stochastic-processes  eden-heaven  politics  equilibrium  hive-mind  genetics  defense  competition  arms  peace-violence  walter-scheidel  speed  marginal  optimization  search  time-preference  patience  futurism  meta:prediction  accuracy  institutions  tetlock  theory-practice  wire-guided  priors-posteriors  distribution  moments  biases  epistemic  nea 
may 2017 by nhaliday
Edge.org: 2017 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC TERM OR CONCEPT OUGHT TO BE MORE WIDELY KNOWN?
highlights:
- the genetic book of the dead [Dawkins]
- complementarity [Frank Wilczek]
- relative information
- effective theory [Lisa Randall]
- affordances [Dennett]
- spontaneous symmetry breaking
- relatedly, equipoise [Nicholas Christakis]
- case-based reasoning
- population reasoning (eg, common law)
- criticality [Cesar Hidalgo]
- Haldan's law of the right size (!SCALE!)
- polygenic scores
- non-ergodic
- ansatz
- state [Aaronson]: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3075
- transfer learning
- effect size
- satisficing
- scaling
- the breeder's equation [Greg Cochran]
- impedance matching

soft:
- reciprocal altruism
- life history [Plomin]
- intellectual honesty [Sam Harris]
- coalitional instinct (interesting claim: building coalitions around "rationality" actually makes it more difficult to update on new evidence as it makes you look like a bad person, eg, the Cathedral)
basically same: https://twitter.com/ortoiseortoise/status/903682354367143936

more: https://www.edge.org/conversation/john_tooby-coalitional-instincts

interesting timing. how woke is this dude?
org:edge  2017  technology  discussion  trends  list  expert  science  top-n  frontier  multi  big-picture  links  the-world-is-just-atoms  metameta  🔬  scitariat  conceptual-vocab  coalitions  q-n-a  psychology  social-psych  anthropology  instinct  coordination  duty  power  status  info-dynamics  cultural-dynamics  being-right  realness  cooperate-defect  westminster  chart  zeitgeist  rot  roots  epistemic  rationality  meta:science  analogy  physics  electromag  geoengineering  environment  atmosphere  climate-change  waves  information-theory  bits  marginal  quantum  metabuch  homo-hetero  thinking  sapiens  genetics  genomics  evolution  bio  GT-101  low-hanging  minimum-viable  dennett  philosophy  cog-psych  neurons  symmetry  humility  life-history  social-structure  GWAS  behavioral-gen  biodet  missing-heritability  ergodic  machine-learning  generalization  west-hunter  population-genetics  methodology  blowhards  spearhead  group-level  scale  magnitude  business  scaling-tech  tech  business-models  optimization  effect-size  aaronson  state  bare-hands  problem-solving  politics 
may 2017 by nhaliday

« earlier    

related tags

2013  2014  2015  2016-election  2016  2017  2018  :)  aaronson  ability-competence  absolute-relative  abstraction  academia  accuracy  acm  acmtariat  additive  adversarial  advertising  advice  aesthetics  afterlife  age-generation  aggregator  agriculture  ai-control  ai  akrasia  albion  algebra  algorithms  alien-character  alignment  alphabetst  alt-inst  altruism  analogy  analysis  analytical-holistic  anglosphere  anthropology  antidemos  antiquity  aphorism  apollonian-dionysian  apple  applicability-prereqs  applications  approximation  aristos  arms  arrows  art  article  asia  atmosphere  atoms  attention  authoritarianism  automation  aversion  axelrod  axioms  backup  badass  bare-hands  barons  bayesian  beauty  behavioral-gen  being-becoming  being-right  better-explained  betting  biases  big-list  big-peeps  big-picture  big-surf  big-yud  bio  biodet  biophysical-econ  biotech  bits  blockchain  blog  blowhards  bluishorange  boaz-barak  bonferroni  books  bootstraps  bostrom  bounded-cognition  brain-scan  breakingbad  bret-victor  britain  broad-econ  business-models  business  c:*  caching  cancer  canon  capitalism  career  cartoons  causation  cdncomedy  chapman  charity  chart  checklists  china  christianity  civic  civil-liberty  civilization  clarity  classic  clever-rats  climate-change  coalitions  coarse-fine  cocktail  cog-psych  cohesion  commentary  communication  compensation  competition  complement-substitute  complex-systems  complexity  composition-decomposition  computation  concentration-of-measure  concept  conceptual-vocab  concrete  confluence  confounding  consilience  constraint-satisfaction  contradiction  contrarianism  convergence  convexity-curvature  cool  cooperate-defect  coordination  core-rats  correlation  corruption  cost-benefit  counter-revolution  courage  cracker-econ  creative  criminal-justice  crispr  critique  crux  crypto  cryptocurrency  cs  cultural-dynamics  culture-war  culture  curiosity  curvature  cybernetics  cycles  cynicism-idealism  darwinian  data-science  data  database  death  debate  debt  decentralized  decision-making  decision-theory  deep-learning  deep-materialism  deepgoog  defense  definite-planning  definition  degrees-of-freedom  democracy  demographics  dennett  dependence-independence  descriptive  design  detail-architecture  differential-privacy  differential  dignity  dimensionality  direct-indirect  discipline  discovery  discussion  distribution  diversity  documentary  drugs  duality  duplication  duty  dynamic  dynamical  dysgenics  early-modern  earth  economics  econotariat  eden-heaven  education  effect-size  efficiency  egalitarianism-hierarchy  elections  electromag  embedded-cognition  embodied  emergent  emotion  empirical  ems  endo-exo  endogenous-exogenous  ends-means  energy-resources  engineering  enhancement  enlightenment-renaissance-restoration-reformation  entropy-like  environment  epidemiology  epistemic  equilibrium  ergodic  essay  essence-existence  estimate  ethics  europe  evidence-based  evidence  evolution  examples  existence  exocortex  expectancy  expert-experience  expert  explanans  explanation  exploratory  exposition  externalities  extrema  fandom  faq  farmers-and-foragers  fashun  fb  fertility  feudal  feynman  fiction  film  finance  finiteness  fire  flexibility  fluid  flux-stasis  focus  formal-values  forms-instances  fourier  free-riding  frequentist  frisson  frontier  fun  futurism  game-theory  gavisti  gbooks  gelman  gender-diff  gender  generalization  genetics  genomics  geoengineering  geometry  giants  gilens-page  gnon  gnosis-logos  good-evil  government  gowers  grad-school  gradient-descent  graph-theory  graphical-models  graphs  gravity  gray-econ  great-powers  ground-up  group-level  growth-econ  growth  gt-101  gtd  gwas  gwern  habit  haidt  hanson  hari-seldon  hashtagonly  hci  heuristic  hi-order-bits  hidden-motives  hierarchy  high-variance  higher-ed  history  hive-mind  hmm  homepage  homo-hetero  homogeneity  hornypony  horror  human-capital  human-ml  humanity  humility  hypocrisy  hypothesis-testing  ideas  identity-politics  identity  ideology  idk  illusion  impact  impetus  incentives  inequality  inference  info-dynamics  info-foraging  information-theory  inhibition  innovation  insight  instinct  institutions  integrity  intel  intelligence  interests  internet  intersection-connectedness  intervention  interview  intricacy  intuition  ioannidis  iron-age  is-ought  iteration-recursion  janus  jargon  journos-pundits  judaism  justified  knowledge  kumbaya-kult  labor  land  language  large-factor  law  learning-theory  learning  lecture-notes  lectures  left-wing  legibility  len:long  len:short  lens  lesswrong  let-me-see  levers  leviathan  lexical  life-history  limits  linear-algebra  linear-programming  linearity  liner-notes  links  list  literature  local-global  logic  long-short-run  long-term  longform  love!  lovecraft  low-hanging  lower-bounds  machiavelli  machine-learning  macro  magnitude  malaise  malthus  management  manifolds  map-territory  maps  marginal-rev  marginal  market-failure  marketing  markets  markov  martingale  mashup  matching  math.ac  math.ca  math.co  math.gn  math.gr  math  mathtariat  matrix-factorization  meaningness  measure  measurement  mechanics  mechanism-design  media  medieval  mediterranean  meme  mena  meta  meta:math  meta:prediction  meta:research  meta:rhetoric  meta:science  metabuch  metafilter_posts  metametameta  metaprogramming  methodology  michael-nielsen  micro  microfic  migration  military  minimalism  minimum-viable  miri-cfar  missing-heritability  model-class  models  moloch  moments  monetary-fiscal  money  morality  mostly-modern  motivation  mrtz  multi  mutation  mystic  myth  n-factor  narrative  nascent-state  nature  near-far  network-structure  neuro-nitgrit  neuro  neurons  new-religion  news  nibble  nietzschean  nihil  nitty-gritty  no-go  noble-lie  noise-structure  nonlinearity  notetaking  novelty  null-result  number  objektbuch  occam  occident  oceans  old-anglo  oly  online-learning  operational  optimate  optimism  optimization  order-disorder  org:anglo  org:bleg  org:edge  org:edu  org:junk  org:mag  org:mat  org:nat  org:rec  org:theos  organizing  orient  oscillation  outcome-risk  outliers  overflow  p:***  p:null  p:someday  p:whenever  paleocon  papers  parable  paradox  parallax  parsimony  path-dependence  patience  paying-rent  pdf  peace-violence  people  personality  perturbation  pessimism  phalanges  phase-transition  phd  philosophy  phys-energy  physics  pigeonhole-markov  pinker  piracy  planning  plots  polarization  policy  polisci  political-econ  politics  poll  population-genetics  population  postmortem  postrat  power  pragmatic  pre-2013  prediction-markets  prediction  preference-falsification  prejudice  preprint  presentation  primitivism  prince  prioritizing  priors-posteriors  privacy  pro-rata  probabilistic-method  probability  problem-solving  productivity  prof  programming  proofs  properties  property-rights  proposal  protestant-catholic  prudence  psychedelics  psychiatry  psychology  psychometrics  public-goodish  publishing  puzzles  q-n-a  qra  quality  quantum-info  quantum  questions  quixotic  quotes  rand-approx  random  randy-ayndy  ranking  rant  rat-pack  rationality  ratty  realness  realpolitik  reason  redistribution  reduction  reference  reflection  regression-to-mean  regularizer  regulation  reinforcement  relativity  religion  rent-seeking  replication  reputation  research-program  research  retention  rhetoric  right-wing  rigidity  rigor  risk  roadmap  robust  roots  rot  rounding  s-factor  s:***  s:**  s:*  s:null  sampling-bias  sanctity-degradation  sapiens  scale  scaling-tech  schelling  scholar-pack  scholar  science  scitariat  search  selection  self-interest  sensitivity  sequential  series  shift  signaling  similarity  simulation  singularity  sinosphere  skeleton  skunkworks  sky  slippery-slope  smoothness  social-choice  social-norms  social-psych  social-science  social-structure  social  sociality  society  soft-question  software  space  spatial  spearhead  spectral  speculation  speed  speedometer  spock  ssc  stamina  stanford  startups  stat-mech  state  statesmen  stats  status  stochastic-processes  stoic  stories  strategy  straussian  stream  street-fighting  stress  structure  study  studying  stylized-facts  subculture  subjective-objective  success  summary  supply-demand  survey  swcph  symmetry  synchrony  synthesis  systematic-ad-hoc  tactics  tags  taxes  tcs  tcstariat  teaching  tech  technology  techtariat  telos-atelos  temperance  tetlock  the-basilisk  the-classics  the-devil  the-founding  the-great-west-whale  the-monster  the-self  the-trenches  the-watchers  the-world-is-just-atoms  theory-of-mind  theory-practice  theos  thermo  thick-thin  thiel  things  thinking  threat-modeling  thurston  tim-roughgarden  time-preference  time  toolkit  top-n  topology  toxoplasmosis  track-record  trade  tradeoffs  tradition  trends  tribalism  tricki  tricks  trust  truth  turing  tv  twitter  ui  unaffiliated  uncertainty  unintended-consequences  uniqueness  unit  universalism-particularism  urban-rural  urban  us-them  usa  utopia-dystopia  ux  vague  values  video  virtu  visual-understanding  visualization  visuo  vitality  volo-avolo  w2smap  walter-scheidel  war  water  waves  web  weird  west-hunter  westminster  whole-partial-many  wiki  wild-ideas  winter-2016  wire-guided  wisdom  within-without  wonkish  wordlessness  working-stiff  world-war  wormholes  worrydream  writers  writing  yarvin  yc  yoga  yvain  zeitgeist  zero-positive-sum  zooming  🎓  🎩  👳  👽  🔬  🖥  🤖  🦀  🦉 

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: