Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

slatestarcodex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 232 posts

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#61

Post by bigstrat2003 »

andrewmcwatters wrote: post #6

Take a shot anytime a “rationalist” invokes Bayes. Long article for him to basically say nothing insightful. Crazy people will say seemingly true things that attract more crazy people. OK. Thanks I guess. The two paragraphs about how good at arguments he is and how other educated people might be able to out argue him in topics if they’re specialists _maybe_ was so stupid I closed the tab, but then I decided to be adu…

> Why do people read this guy’s crap?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that it's because they disagree with your assessment, and think that he does have something insightful to say.

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#63

Post by pixl97 »

twelfthnight wrote: post #53
helicalmix wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the correct Bayesian action: if I know that a false argument sounds just as convincing as a true argument, argument convincingness provides no evidence either way. I should ignore it and stick with my prior. If two diametrically opposed arguments are equally convincing, it's not intuitive to me that the "correct" solution is a middle ground. Especially if both argument state that a middle ground is not poss…

I guess if I encountered two diametrically opposing arguments of equal validity I would increase my uncertainty, not just stick to my prior. That's super different to just ignoring new arguments, right? Like going from "I think X is the best candidate" to "I don't know who the best candidate is".

In general this is not how biological life has evolved and not how most decisions work within that framework.

Most decisions you'll ever make are "You have ___ seconds/minutes/hours to make a choice". And depending on the pressures you're under you will skip the expensive logical/rational processing as needed and fall back to heuristics.

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#64

Post by pixl97 »

Aurornis wrote: post #43

> I’ve heard a few good arguments in this direction before, things like how engineering trains you to have a very black-and-white right-or-wrong view of the world based on a few simple formulae, Whenever the rationalist writers start talking about engineering, programming, or machine learning in technical terms I have a sudden Gell-Mann Amnesia realization that these people's primary domain is writing and pontificati…

I call this the "Rationals spend a whole lot of time and effort ignoring their irrational parts"

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#66

Post by kdmccormick »

astura wrote: post #50
philip1209 wrote: post #18

This article talks about learned helplessness in a learning context. I talked about it in a work context, and the two could be linked. I think social media is training people for everything to be quick, but learning + work aren't necessarily quick. > This insistence on constant availability disrupts the essence of focused work. Rather than encouraging employees to tackle complex problems independently, there’s a tren…

This just has not been my experience at all. I've never had a problem with a junior asking too many questions. Never. I have, however, had issues with them not asking enough questions.

I have had both problems. As it turns out, unsurprisingly, it varies from person to person.

It can also vary within a single person. They might, for example, ask questions too quickly when stuck on a technical question that could be solved by reading docs, but ask questions too slowly when stuck on an ambiguous product requiment that can only be personally answered by the PM or UX person.

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#67

Post by ZephyrBlu »

spencerchubb wrote: post #55
philip1209 wrote: post #18

This article talks about learned helplessness in a learning context. I talked about it in a work context, and the two could be linked. I think social media is training people for everything to be quick, but learning + work aren't necessarily quick. > This insistence on constant availability disrupts the essence of focused work. Rather than encouraging employees to tackle complex problems independently, there’s a tren…

As a junior dev, sometimes I've been blocked for hours because I want to show that I can solve problems independently. But I've definitely had cases where I should've asked questions early. A question that takes 1 minute to answer could have saved hours. For instance, I was stuck on figuring out how to send an email through AWS. Turns out we have a lambda function that handles all the authentication and security thin…

The distinction between trying to solve a problem yourself vs ask for help is: are you figuring out a new problem, or figuring out the system?

If you're trying to figure out the system, you should probably ask for help ASAP and build up some knowledge. Over time you'll need to ask questions about the system less frequently.

If you're trying to figure out a new problem related to your work, slogging away at it for a while is more ok because it's value-add and a good learning experience.

The lines are a bit blurry, but that's how I tend to think about this.

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#68

Post by pixl97 »

29athrowaway wrote: post #62

One downside of the specialization in a service economy is that people no longer are as resourceful as the older generations. Older people could fix and build anything. To me some of the things they do is totally McGyver level shit.

I think there is some partial issues here... It is not just about people, it is also about devices.

Most of these people you're talking about today, if given an old device and a simple set of instructions could fix said device.

Now, I like to think I can pull off some McGyver level shit, but when the first step of fixing a modern device is "Heat the device to 250F to break the epoxy bond and then take it to your solder station" then actually fixing this stuff is closer to galaxy level brain.

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#69

Post by more_corn »

This is a terribly negative take on a very useful skill. Perhaps a better description would be: “Recognizing the limits of our own powers of discernment”

We have to acknowledge that we don’t have sufficient understanding and expertise to differentiate truth from bullshit in all fields. It is reasonable therefore to turn to scientific consensus and to disregard the arguments of bullshitters.

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#70

Post by bitzun »

helicalmix wrote: post #11
bongripper wrote: post #3

>I don’t think I’m overselling myself too much to expect that I could argue circles around the average uneducated person. Like I mean that on most topics, I could demolish their position and make them look like an idiot. Reduce them to some form of “Look, everything you say fits together and I can’t explain why you’re wrong, I just know you are!” Or, more plausibly, “Shut up I don’t want to talk about this!” > And th…

If anything, Scott is underselling himself, and could probably argue circles against the average educated person. Debates are the rationalists bread and butter, and you should expect them to be better at you the same way you would expect a trained boxer to beat you in a fistfight.

I've been to dozens of rationalist meetups (I don't know why), people are constantly talking out of their ass while constantly referencing contrived rhetorical devices. A lot of "just asking questions", confidently asserting solutions to e.g. palestine, cartels, etc. and contending with things TV pundits say.

I like some of Scott Alexander's writing, but "rationalists" in general online or IRL have not been very impressive to me.

Post reply on HN