kirchner.jan

• kirchner.jan 8 Aug 2024 20:10 UTC

  5 points

  2 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Arepo’s comment on: Most smart and skil­led peo­ple are out­side of the EA/​ra­tio­nal­ist com­mu­nity: an analysis

  This seems like a straw man. Where does the OP claim EA is not impactful? Given his strong engagement with the movement, I assume he believes that it is.

  I think there might be a misunderstanding here? My entire point is that OP’s conclusions are valid (they’re saying a lot of true things like “Small communities can get a lot of impressive stuff done” and “Your little bubble will not solve the all the secrets of the universe”) but the argument for those conclusions is invalid.

  The argument goes^[1]: if you are a small community and you don’t following my advice then your impact is strongly limited.

  My counter is a demonstration by counterexample, I argue that the argument can’t be valid, since there exist small communities that don’t follow OPs advice and that made a lot more than, in OPs words, “a small dent in the vast mine of unknown knowledge”.

  Cherry picking a couple of small groups [...] doesn’t seem like a good counterargument to the claim that being a small group should encourage humility.

  I hope the previous paragraph makes it clear why ‘cherry picking’ is appropriate here? To disprove an implication it’s sufficient to produce an instance where the implication doesn’t hold.

  that achieved moderate success—one of whom entirely abandoned their research project after several decades after sustained and well-argued attack from people outside the circle

  I guess here we have more of an object-level disagreement? Just because a philosophy eventually became canonised doesn’t mean it was moderately successful. The fact that most of analytic philosophy was developed either in support or in opposition of logical positivism is pretty much the highest achievement possible in philosophy? And, according to the logic outlined above, it’s not actually sufficient to explain away one of my counter-examples, to defend the original argument you actually have to explain away all of my counter-examples.

  1. ^

     my paraphrase, would be curious if you disagree

• kirchner.jan 5 Aug 2024 18:10 UTC

  4 points

  3 ∶ 1

  in reply to: Arepo’s comment on: Most smart and skil­led peo­ple are out­side of the EA/​ra­tio­nal­ist com­mu­nity: an analysis

  Just because a community is small and most smart people are outside of it doesn’t mean that the community cannot have a disproportionately large impact. The Vienna Circle is one example (analytic philosophy and everything downstream of it would look very different without them) and they were somewhat insular. Gertrud Stein’s Salons and the Chelsea Hotel might have had a similar impact on art and literature in the 20th century.

  Importantly, I’m not saying EA is the same (arguably it’s already too large to be included in that list), but the argument that statistically most smart people are outside of a small community is not a good argument for whether that community will be impactful or for whether that community should engage more with the rest of the world.

• kirchner.jan 14 Jul 2024 1:04 UTC

  14 points

  7 ∶ 1

  on: Most smart and skil­led peo­ple are out­side of the EA/​ra­tio­nal­ist com­mu­nity: an analysis

  Conclusion is probably valid, argument probably invalid? The argument proves too much — “Most smart and skilled people are outside of the Vienna Circle”

I’m not get­ting in that van.

• kirchner.jan 28 Jan 2022 15:08 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Joseph Lemien’s comment on: Slightly ad­vanced de­ci­sion the­ory 102: Four rea­sons not to be a (naive) util­ity maximizer

  Thank you so much for your kind words <3 I’m happy you enjoyed the post!

• kirchner.jan 23 Jan 2022 20:59 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: CBiddulph’s comment on: “Fix­ing Ado­les­cence” as a Cause Area?

  That’s true, I didn’t realize that… But I don’t actually think it’s incompatible with the rest of the argument.

  1. even if it’s not the worst for everyone, it could still be one of the worst experiences for a lot of people (the 35% describing it as a so-so time in the Gallup poll). (related)

  2. even if only 1 in 25 had a very bad time in high school, that would mean that their life satisfaction has to be a lot lower than baseline for the average to come out at −0.2. In particular, $0\times 0.96+x\times 0.04=-0.2\text{, then}x=-5$ and we are in an extremely severe territory in terms of EQ5D.

  3. your argument about nostalgia also appears very strong to me

• kirchner.jan 23 Jan 2022 20:49 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Larks’s comment on: “Fix­ing Ado­les­cence” as a Cause Area?

  Thanks for the comment, glad you liked it (:

  During the research, I was also thinking about the Amish and in particular about this old SSC article on “ARE THE AMISH UNHAPPY? SUPER HAPPY? JUST MEH?”. The conclusion there is “We just don’t know”, so I did not go further into this.

  In general, I anticipate that the self-selection effects on alternative schools and homeschooling will be pretty large, but would still be super interesting to see.

• kirchner.jan 23 Jan 2022 15:02 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Tsunayoshi’s comment on: “Fix­ing Ado­les­cence” as a Cause Area?

  I looked at this a little bit in my research and it seems that reports of bullying are actually most abundant in elementary school and then decrease steadily (in Japan, the U.S. in 2010, and possibly in China but the source is unavailable). This does not say anything about the severity of bullying though and I could imagine that’s a strong factor (“it’s wrong to think of little children as innocent, because not knowing isn’t the same as not choosing. That children do little harms to each other with schoolyard fights, because they don’t have the power to do great harm.”). And I could also imagine that there is a kind of accumulative effect that comes from sustained bullying. Or perhaps stress from school and puberty are mediating factors?

  But yeah, prima facie the high amount of bullying in elementary school doesn’t fit the picture very well.

• kirchner.jan 23 Jan 2022 14:46 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: D0TheMath’s comment on: “Fix­ing Ado­les­cence” as a Cause Area?

  Great points, I agree! I guess I fell prey to the Streetlight effect there. I found this article by Robin Hanson interesting, Mason Hartman has interesting thoughts on Twitter (her most recent stuff is pretty extreme though), and there is a lot on YouTube on how the School System is broken in many ways. But despite a lot of educational reform, there are some issues that prove very hard to tackle. But perhaps there is something smart & unorthodox that can be done...

• kirchner.jan 23 Jan 2022 14:37 UTC

  5 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: D0TheMath’s comment on: “Fix­ing Ado­les­cence” as a Cause Area?

  True, thanks for spotting! Should be fixed now.

“Fix­ing Ado­les­cence” as a Cause Area?

• kirchner.jan 24 Nov 2021 17:19 UTC

  6 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Ramiro’s comment on: Slightly ad­vanced de­ci­sion the­ory 102: Four rea­sons not to be a (naive) util­ity maximizer

  Thanks for the comment, gives me the fuzzies to know that this is useful to someone ☺

  On explore/​exploit there is this great post by Applied Divinity Studies (https://​​applieddivinitystudies.com/​​career-timing/​​) where they raise the possibility that EAs in particular spend too much time exploring and not exploiting. (But they also point out that interpreting toy models is tricky).

  I’ve also written something (https://​​universalprior.substack.com/​​p/​​soldiers-scouts-and-albatrosses) where I argue that the optimal solution for explore-exploit trade offs that evolution has come up with (Levy flights) might also generalize to career decision and thinking more general (extended periods of deep focus on one topic, interrupted by bouts of substantial change/​​exploration of new terrain).

  Have a nice day!

Slightly ad­vanced de­ci­sion the­ory 102: Four rea­sons not to be a (naive) util­ity maximizer

• kirchner.jan 24 Oct 2021 21:28 UTC

  7 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: EdoArad’s comment on: Frank­furt Dec­la­ra­tion on the Cam­bridge Dec­la­ra­tion on Consciousness

  Hi Edo :) Thank you for your message!

  It looks like the Cambridge Declaration is saying something like “we have no scientific reason to suspect that nonhuman animals are less conscious than humans”, rather than “animals are conscious”.

  Yes, there is indeed a big mismatch between what the Cambridge declaration states and how it has been cited since! But it really is very hard to summarize what the declaration is stating. If your summary is correct, then I think it would be easy to argue that the declaration is false. The (scientific) claim that the cortex plays a role in “consciousness” should at least count as some evidence that animals without a cortex are less conscious. The declaration is not actually able to explain this away (this is related to Luke’s point #3):

  To make matters worse the Declaration seems to come close to a clunking logical error, along the lines of: other areas than the neocortex are involved in having feelings; animals have those other areas, therefore animals have feelings. That wouldn’t work: you could as well argue that: other organs than the eye are involved in seeing; people whose eyes have been gouged out have those other organs; therefore people whose eyes have been gouged out can see. You can’t really dismiss the neocortex that easily. (source)

  This is one of the concrete issues I have with the declaration. I also really dislike that they don’t cite any references and that they don’t provide any definition for what they mean by the term consciousness (even though the term is notoriously overloaded). The report by Luke Muehlhauser does not fall into any of these traps and is just superior to the declaration in every aspect. This is the point that I should have made more clearly in the post: the declaration is flawed and should not be used when making a case for/​against animal consciousness. My “declaration on a declaration” is just me satirizing arguments from authority.

  I also have more general issues with “consciousness”. My position here is a form of eliminative materialism and is very similar to the one explored by Brian Tomasek here and Dan Dennet here. I want to give this a full blog-length treatment at some point, but if you’re interested we can have a chat about this next week at EAG! Would be very interested to hear your thoughts!

Frank­furt Dec­la­ra­tion on the Cam­bridge Dec­la­ra­tion on Consciousness

• kirchner.jan 20 Oct 2021 6:44 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: kirchner.jan’s comment on: On Scal­ing Academia

  Just found an article by Robin Hanson from 1990 on this topic: http://​​mason.gmu.edu/​​~rhanson/​​gamble.html I didn’t realize that the idea had been around for that long!

The Tale Of Gandhi And The Devil

• kirchner.jan 28 Sep 2021 12:08 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: MaxRa’s comment on: On Scal­ing Academia

  Thank you very much for sharing, I didn’t know that platform before! Looks like a great initiative and the science article is also very inspired. The failure mode I see is that they might be aiming too broad—realistically for this to take off you might want to start with a small group of very devoted users who can also benefit from the effort they invest? But finding that group poses a different set of problems, of course.

  Regarding the “living wage” argument—thank you for calling me out on that, I crossed the line into science fiction there.

On Scal­ing Academia

Mak­ing of #IAN