Comments
Bayesian Reformation
Bayesian orthodoxy has often been compared to a cult. Here, we take the opposite perspective, comparing Bayesianism to a long-standing institution like the Catholic Church.
The protestant reformation created initial (and ongoing) unrest, including bloody violence. However, we take the view that the reformation improved social institutions generally, culminating in the industrial revolution. Hence, the reformation offers a model of high-leverage changes with dramatically positive consequences on the future.
The primary question, then, is effective instigation and agitation -- how does one create conditions ripe for Reformation? What are the preconditions to a modern Martin Luther, nailing a new 95 Theses to the door of Bayesianism and Effective Altruism?
Since the historical Martin Luther initially studied as a lawyer, but hated it, we recommend a critical study of the law as a starting point, including the naturalization of the social contract. This goes well with a general study of the failures of top-down optimization such as Bayesian/utilitarian public policy tends to favor.
The distribution of radical literature being an old standby of the instigation and agitation industry, we recommend the circulation of literature concerning radical probabilism, a doctrine which critiques the Bayesian update -- insisting that, while Bayes' Law correctly analyzes updating on a certainty, there is in fact no such thing as certain knowledge. Bayes' Law therefore never applies.
According to this doctrine, all we can say about the shifting nature of belief is that they should not be (unboundedly) Dutch Book -able. In particular, like financial markets, they should behave like a martingale -- at any time, the current betting value ('price') of any belief should also be a best estimate of its future value.
We also broadly recommend attention be paid to critiques of Bayesian orthodoxy, implying that we sit down and actually pay attention to various critiques of Bayesianism (Frequentist, and otherwise). For too long have we rested in complacency, accepting Bayesian dogma. The time has come to develop a better perspective.
Get Joe Biden To Take Nootropics.
For a while, the 2020 American presidential contest was down to three men: The man with heart trouble, the man with brain trouble, and the man with ego trouble. But now that the man with heart trouble is ranking below Andrew Cuomo, who is not even running, in prediction markets for the Democratic nomination, it is looking increasingly likely that the American public will have to decide whether brain trouble or ego trouble is less disqualifying.
What they should be asking is which of brain trouble or ego trouble is more easily fixed.
It's possible you've heard some buzz in your social circle about brain-enhancing nootropic drugs. One thing you might not know is that in some cases, although the drug appears to be something of a dud for younger folks, it works in oldsters:
From a lit review.
From Examine.com. (Remember from a few news cycles ago: Joe Biden tells factory worker ‘you’re full of shit’ during a tense argument over guns.)
Why might this be a Top EA Cause? In addition to the usual massive responsibilities of being POTUS, America is currently suffering from a pandemic. A 1% improvement in the intelligence of the actions taken by the chief executive could directly and immediately save thousands of lives.
Is it tractable? Yes, but it's not talent or money limited. It's memetics limited. We need to figure out if we have any connections to the Biden campaign who can start planning his meals to keep the bulb as bright as possible. Failing that, we could suggest that a nootropics company form a marketing initiative around this. Or Kelsey could write about it in Vox. Or something.
Don't forget the importance of regular Super Mario 64 play either.
I detect elevated levels of malarkey in this comment :^)
Yep!
Excellent submission!
Thanks!