All of kieuk's Comments + Replies

The problem of how to create feedback loops is much more difficult for organisations who focus on far-future (or even medium-future) outcomes. It's still worth trying to create some loops, as far as possible, and to tighten them.

Careers Questions Open Thread

I'm yet another person who pivoted from having a linguistics degree to doing software development as a job - a relatively common path. (In between I tried to be a musician.) The transition was relatively easy: I did a 4-month bootcamp (Makers, London) in 2019. I think it's much easier to go the bootcamp route than the self-teaching route (assuming the bootcamp is good quality), because it's full-time, focuses on practical skills, and is verifiable by employers. (Also, they had a careers coach, and a money-back-if-you-don't-get-a-job guarantee, both of whic... (read more)

Contact us

Where would you like bug reports to go?

2Aaron Gertler1yReporting via Intercom or email is fine -- whatever's easiest for you!
Should EAs participate in the Double Up Drive?

This question has been answered to some extent by Aaron Gertler, regarding the 2018 version of Double Up Drive, here.

This year, it seems like the Drive turned out to be counterfactual for all money raised after $2.4 million, but not necessarily before (we don’t actually know).

Elsewhere on this forum, Aaron also said:

[...] finding out whether a match is actually counterfactual can be a really big deal for the community; I wish I'd worked harder to confirm with the Double Up Drive team whether their match was counterfactual (I think the answer tu
... (read more)
Are we living at the most influential time in history?

Would someone be willing to translate these sentences from philosophy/maths into English? Or let me know how I can work it out for myself?

That is: P(cards not shuffled)P(cards in perfect order | cards not shuffled) >> P(cards shuffled)P(cards in perfect order | cards shuffled), even if my prior credence was that P(cards shuffled) > P(cards not shuffled), so I should update towards the cards having not been shuffled.
Similarly, if it seems to me that I’m living in the most influential time ever, this gives me good reason to suspect that the r
... (read more)
1wuschel2yImagine you play cards with your friends. You have the deck in your hand. You are pretty confident, that you have shuffled the deck. Than you seal the deck, and give yourself the first 10 cards. And what a surprise: You happen to find all the clubs in your hand! What is more reasonable to assume? That you just happen do dray all the clubs, or that you where wrong about having suffeld the cards? Rather the latter one. Compare this to: Imagine, thinking about the HoH hypothesis. You are pretty confident, that you are good at long term-forecasting, and you predict, that the most influential time in history in: NOW?! Here to, so the argument goes, it is more reasonable to assume, that your assumption of being good in forecasting the future, is flawed.
Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

I'm not really talking about showing how friendly you are

It looks like we were talking at cross purposes. I was picking up on the admittedly months-old conversation about "signalling collaborativeness" and [anti-]"combaticism", which is a separate conversation to the one on value signals. (Value signals are probably a means of signalling collaborativeness though.)

you should probably signal however friendly you are actually feeling

I think politeness serves a useful function (within moderation, of course). 'Forcing' people to behav... (read more)

0kbog4yNot if people aren't attracted to such friendliness. Lots of successful social movements and communities are less friendly than EA.
Sexual Violence Risk Reduction - Let's Do Tracking!

Yes. What I'm asking about is coordinating methodology. I think Kathy had been a point of contact for both things.

Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

But I can control whether I am priming people to get accustomed to over-interpreting.

That sounds potentially important. Could you give an example of a failure mode?

Because my approach is not merely about how to behave as a listener. It's about speaking without throwing in unnecessary disclaimers.

Consider how my question "Could you give an example...?" reads if I didn't precede it with the following signal of collaborativeness: "That sounds potentially important." At least to me (YMMV), I would be like 15% less likely to feel defe... (read more)

0kbog4yThe failure mode where people over-interpret things that other people say, and then come up with wrong interpretations. Well you should probably signal however friendly you are actually feeling, but I'm not really talking about showing how friendly you are, I'm talking about going out of your way to say "of course I don't mean X" and so on. https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/05/skip-value-signals.html [https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/05/skip-value-signals.html]
Sexual Violence Risk Reduction - Let's Do Tracking!

Since Kathy is sadly gone*, is there a potential new coordination point for coordinating our tracking methods? If you think it's best to coordinate privately, you can find me on Facebook (David Mears)

*https://www.facebook.com/Kathleen-Kathy-Rebecca-Forth-Memorial-Page-184870828823873/

2Khorton4yI think Julia Wise is a point person for tracking these incidents.
Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

You only have control over your own actions: you can't control whether your interlocutor over-interprets you or not.

Your "right approach", which is about how to behave as a listener, is compatible with Michael_PJ's, which is about how to behave as a speaker: I don't see why we can't do both.

0kbog4yBut I can control whether I am priming people to get accustomed to over-interpreting. Because my approach is not merely about how to behave as a listener. It's about speaking without throwing in unnecessary disclaimers.