Live data from Hacker News

Who You Are

nytimes.com

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: Who You Are

#31

I agree with the basic tenants of this article. Yes it was true, that k&t were moving the model into the 'economic sphere'. But I think you cannot overstate the importance of this. Behavioral finance/economics coming back into cog. psych. and cog. neuro. is absolutely earth-shattering. the money dictated the research and now that research is FINALLY being applied back into where it belongs. I can't wait for these ide…

It actually has made it into machine learning. See the works of Gigerenzer on heuristic decision making, where he shows that simple heuristics outperform complex statistical models unless the amount of data is really large. It blew my mind when I saw it, and a good paper to start with is here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.130...

That being said, almost anything Gigerenzer has written in the last five years is extremely relevant to this topic.

Re: Who You Are

#32

I agree with the basic tenants of this article. Yes it was true, that k&t were moving the model into the 'economic sphere'. But I think you cannot overstate the importance of this. Behavioral finance/economics coming back into cog. psych. and cog. neuro. is absolutely earth-shattering. the money dictated the research and now that research is FINALLY being applied back into where it belongs. I can't wait for these ide…

You mean tenets intead of tenants

Re: Who You Are

#33
"We are players in a game we don’t understand."

We've had the opportunity to understand the game ever since Darwin published the Origin of Species. Yet, even Darwin himself struggled with the ramifications of what we truly are (and aren't) after his mind numbing discovery. The truth is far too devastating for the majority, and it is this fact that divides us. A brain can only be of three dispositions: one that understands reality, one that refuses to, and one that doesn't. A subset of the last is a brain which simplifies a complex, poorly understood reality into one that is far easier to grasp. This last one is where the majority find comfort.

Human motivation is frighteningly simple if looked at objectively, and it is this truth that we hide from ourselves at all costs to preserve our sanity.

Re: Who You Are

#35
post #7

Yet another entry in the long list of pop psychology books. It seems like they all gear up on one or two navel-gazing insights that just about anybody can intuitively identify with (You have a slow, rational side and a fast, emotional side! Doesn't that explain everything?) and then, they try to run as far as they can with the implications of this overly dumbed-down hypothesis. Carefully cherry-picked statistics from…

I think you are judging their work solely on Brooks' description of it.

Re: Who You Are

#36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If I had to guess, humans end up implementing something like the reverse of a typical boosting algorithm, in that we take a bunch of too-strong pattern recognizing subunits, and then put them together into something that pits them against each other to become more robust against mis-prediction" "Ensemble methods" seems to be what you're talking about. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_learning ) The applicatio…

Boosting, which he mentioned, is an ensemble method so I assume the parent is familiar with them. Ensemble methods incorporate multiple weak classifiers and work to make them stronger. I think the parent was thinking of the reverse of this, although that idea seems pretty alien to me.

Yes, I'm familiar with ensemble methods, I use them a lot for classification. But those are not really what I'm thinking about (I'm still groping towards concrete ideas here, so forgive me if the following is a bit vague). Perhaps my saying "the reverse of boosting" is not really an accurate way to put this, in retrospect, so let me clarify.

Ensemble methods typically take several distinct (either by method or training) weak learners and combine the predictions to get one strong hybrid by smoothing, averaging, or otherwise combining the results. They are still vulnerable to overtraining, though, and they're not very good at generalizing from small amounts of data because the individual weak learners don't learn from each other or from context.

My theory is that we might be able to get rid of the ensemble and tolerate massive overtraining without detriment if instead of merely combining results, we took a recursive approach and let the classifier use its output as input at another level. My thought is that overtraining on some patterns could be mollified by the ability to recognize error due to overtraining as a pattern at a different depth of recursion.

This obviously would not be generally applicable to weak learners, it would only apply to a particular subset of learners, and that's where my thoughts get a lot muddier and speculative.

My really wild speculation: in the limit, if you set something like this up in the right way, you might be able to come up with an efficient approximation to Solomonoff induction as restricted to the subset of patterns that you're actually exposed to, rather than over the entire set of possible inputs. If I'm correct about that, it would enable staggeringly effective learning within a domain, as long as the domain itself displayed patterns that had some sort of underlying order.

But I don't have any codez to show, or really anything more than a hunch at this point, so don't take me too seriously. :)

Re: Who You Are

#37
post #33

"We are players in a game we don’t understand." We've had the opportunity to understand the game ever since Darwin published the Origin of Species. Yet, even Darwin himself struggled with the ramifications of what we truly are (and aren't) after his mind numbing discovery. The truth is far too devastating for the majority, and it is this fact that divides us. A brain can only be of three dispositions: one that unders…

I must admit that I didnt quite get what you said here :( Would you care to elaborate?
Post reply on HN