[ExI] How to make progress (was Re: Why do political and economic leaders deny Peak Oil and Climate Change?)

Tue Sep 10 00:21:58 UTC 2013

Hi Eugene,

You indicated knowing who the experts is the problem.  But at 
Canonizer.com it isn't.  At Canonizer.com anyone can pick any experts 
they trust, by selecting the Canonizer algorithm on the side bar.  So 
far, the most popular 'expert' algorithms are peer ranking ones, where 
peers rank each other.  And, again, when you're attempting to 
communicate to anyone, or any group, you work from their chosen experts, 
whatever that is.

You also asked:

Have you never ever wondered why your pet project, or LessWrong never
went anywhere?

Well, it's not wikipedia, YET.  But if you could see what it is becoming 
from where I'm sitting, you'd laugh at this.  Remember, if you want to 
communicate successfully, you just need to work from your targets 
perspective.  I admit there isn't enough evidence to prove to you it's 
capabilities, but it's making progress in that direction, and my 
prediction is that it will eventually convince you.  As I indicated 
earlier, at the very minimum it has stopped the hateful conversations, 
like this one, where everyone repeated their POV, infinitely, on 
consciousness, and everyone eventually started acusing the others as 
Hitler, and so on.

Now, everyone that participates very much enjoys the conversation is 
their understand is light years ahead of what it was when we were all 
stuck with infinite YES!!  NO!! YES!..   Instead of infinitely repeating 
your position, you just say your' in camp 
http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/36 and everyone knows exactly what you 
believe, how many experts agree, and how many don't, along with concise 
and quantitative descriptions of why.  Nobody ever needs to give up, as 
your camp, and everyone that agrees, is collaboratively continued to be 
developed.  If anyone berings any new ideas, or new scientific evidence 
to the table, it get's canonized, and most importantly of all, you get a 
rigorous measure of just how good the information by know how many new 
people it convinces.  If you want to know what the state of the art of 
the conversation is, you can see a nice concise and quantitative summary 
of what all 50 participators (including several world class experts like 
Chalmers, Lehar...) believe - real time. (Note:  some have abandoned 
their now falsified camps, due to real experimental data.)    Good luck 
finding anything like that, in all the work you and everyone has put 
into this conversation, or in anything like Less Wrong.

You asked what my top priorities are.  See my canonized list:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/120/8

What do you mean when you said: "I used to communicate concisely and 
quantitatively."?

Finally, you s aid:

"I know why you hate what I'm saying. You think I'm the party who's
putting everything in jeopardy. Unfortunately, it's exactly the
other way round. Wrong goals kill."

I completely agree with this, and the facts of the matter of much of 
what you say.  It's all about quantity and priorities.   I completely 
agree that you could have something critically important to us all.  
Most everything you are saying is just driving me away from agreeing 
with you.  Especially when you say things like there is a consensus.  IF 
that were true, you should be able to start to canonize things, and such 
evidence would start to show up.  In fact, can you point to any expert I 
might recognize. that supports this assertion?  Seems to me there is far 
less evidence of any expert support for "peek oil" than for "global 
warming", and I very much doubt their claims of 'expert consensus'.

Brent Allsop

On 9/9/2013 9:38 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 03:53:45PM -0600, Brent Allsop wrote:
>
>>> Therein lies the problem. We are yeast.
>> Oh puuleese.  Yeast can't communicate, at least like we can.  And
> Transmitting information without purpose is useless.
> See http://www.google.com/trends/topcharts and
> http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends
>
>> there are ways to comunicate much more effectively than like this.
>> If there truly is a terrible risk, the most effect way to
>> communicate such is to start building an expert consensus arround it
> There is an expert consensus. But most people can't tell who's
> an expert, unless they're experts themselves. In fact, most
> people don't bother with experts, and are authority-driven.
> Therein lies a part of our problem.
>
>> in an open survey way, where you can also survey for why others
>> can't yet accept what you are saying, if there are any, and have a
>> concice and quantitative reference to that to work with.  Currently,
>> you are just working from your frame of reference, having no clue
>> why I so hate what you are saying, or what might convince me.  It
> I know why you hate what I'm saying. You think I'm the party who's
> putting everything in jeopardy. Unfortunately, it's exactly the
> other way round. Wrong goals kill.
>
>> also would help to find a set of experts that I trust, and start to
>> build a consensus amongst them.  That would definitely convince me,
> This is not how reality works.
>
>> and I bet most every rational person.  Once people understand, I and
> Rational people who think that the world works in a rational way are irrational.
>
>> I believe anyone would go to the end of the world to save it, or any
>> loved one.
> Not confirmed by empirical observation. Twerking lolcats get in the way.
>   
>> To bad you have no clue as to why I so desperately truly 'hate'
> I might be stupid, but I'm not that stupid. I can model you ok.
> In fact I know that I'm wasting your and my time with this exchange.
>
>> these kinds of points of view, and why I feel they are leading to
>> the unnecessary eternal damnation of so many of my loved ones,
>> indeed possibly most everyone alive today.  Maybe if you had half an
>> idea, you could finally find a way to communicate to all of us that
>> feel as I do, then I could help you?
>>
>>> What is the best way to go about it? It seems that we've ran
>>> out of options but at personal and small community level due
>>> to the reasons outlined above.
>> Oh yee of little and mistaken (thinking we are all nothing more than
>> yeast...) faith.
> The empirical evidence does not support your interpretation.
>   
>>> Even knowing that doesn't help much, since most of us are locked
>>> in a precarious configuration it will hurt to change short-term.
>>> Yet by acting too late we will not be able to effect that transition.
>> Once we can communicate, concisely and quantitatively, in an expert
> I used to communicate concisely and quantitatively. However,
> I soon found it's a complete waste of everybody's time, so
> I'm now mostly doing my best impersonation of Statler and Waldorf
> from the peanut gallery. Pffffffrt.
>
>> consensus way, it will amplify the moral wisdom of us all, and
>> enable all of us to do whatever is required.  Co-operation only
>> requires definitive expert consensus.  Sure, yeast can't achieve
> No, you're completely wrong.
>
>> that yet, but we most certainly can.  You can't expect everyone to
>> be experts in the infinite number of existential end of the world
>> threats an infinite number of individuals are going on about
> The question is one of prioritiziation in face of limited resources.
> Most people are terrible at that.
>
>> infinitely.  All we need to do is to measure for which of them have
>> the most expert consensus, and enable all these experts to
>> comunicate in a definitive and concise, nobody can deny way, and
>> rigorously measure for how fast this consensus is growing.  And if
>> it isn't growing in certain cercles, finding out why, concicely and
>> quantitativedly, and surveying for what might work better, from
> Have you never ever wondered why your pet project, or LessWrong never
> went anywhere?
>
>> their frame of reference.  Why would the world not follow that, on a
>> dime, giving any and all required, if you could do that?
>>
>>> It seems the best strategy now is to act ruthless, bold and selfish,
>> As in kill people?  Take away their free agency?  Excommunicate
> No, no. It's about building islands of resilience, which can
> somewhat resist creeping regression around them. Unfortunately,
> it requires a lot of resources to do so effectively.
>
>> nonbelievers? Give up on people? Force everyone to work on what you
> Give up on the majority, absolutely. Heading for the rescue boats
> beats rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
>
>> think is the most pressing existential threat, rather than what
> Forcing? Me, and which army?
>
>> others think is a far more serious and pressing?
> What is your set of pressing problems, listed in their
> priorities? Top five would be enough.
>   
>>> and make your exit while you still can. The exit must involve building
>>> a mutually supportive rural community. This is an alien concept to
>>> many.
>> Exit?  What will any of that do?  So, yes, you hate, or are giving
> It will last a little bit longer against the rising tidal wave
> of shit. Hate? Another perfect waste of time, I'm afraid.
>
>> up on the rest of us?  You'd leave us behind?
> I've given on this community to accomplish significant goals
> a long time ago. I still value it as a social circle, though
> I've been taking vacations in the past when the aggravation got
> too serious.
>
>>> Here my fortune cookie ends.
>> Yup, definitely giving up.
> Insufficient information.
>   
>>> In case yours says something else,
>>> let's compare notes
>> What are you saying here?  It sounds like you are almost asking
>> people to try to communicate, concisely and quantitatively?
> Surprise me.
>   
>>> (please no discussions about how it's all
>>> unreal; because: nazis wear nice leather uniforms).
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat