Explorable Explanations - Learning through exploration / guesses

[Max Kaye]

If anyone hasn't seen or heard of explorable explanations (EEs) you
should definitely check them out.

The idea is to provide a sandbox / experimental framework to help
students learn about a concept in an intuitive way.

My FI interpretation might be: it helps students *guess faster and
better* than without such a sandbox (i.e. via a lecture or exercises)

Here are some of my favourite examples:

* Parable of the polygons - an explorable explanation about racism /
segregation, how it manifests in communities, and how we can prevent it:
http://ncase.me/polygons/

* The evolution of trust - a recent and high quality EE that explores
how trust can evolve in a complex society, when it doesn't evolve, and
how we can create systems to encourage it. Very intuitive if you know a
bit about game theory: http://ncase.me/trust/

* To build a better ballot - another recent EE that looks at various
voting systems and the interesting and chaotic properties they present.
(Aside: I think the combination of Arrow's theorem and the apportionment
paradox heavily indicate that seeking objective truth will lead us away
from such systems, but this is still a good EE): http://ncase.me/ballot/

Finally, this new site has just launched with a compendium of EEs:
http://explorabl.es/

Although all the ones I've mentioned above are by Nicky Case,
explorabl.es has more authors.


Max

[Elliot Temple]

On Sep 5, 2017, at 9:25 PM, Max Kaye <m...@xk.io> wrote:

> If anyone hasn't seen or heard of explorable explanations (EEs) you should definitely check them out.
>
> The idea is to provide a sandbox / experimental framework to help students learn about a concept in an intuitive way.
>
> My FI interpretation might be: it helps students *guess faster and better* than without such a sandbox (i.e. via a lecture or exercises)
>
> Here are some of my favourite examples:
>
> * Parable of the polygons - an explorable explanation about racism / segregation, how it manifests in communities, and how we can prevent it: http://ncase.me/polygons/

i think the philosophical claims here are not implied by the math, and are basically unargued and false (and barely get any attention, there's just stated as conclusions at the end without any detailed explanations connecting the math to actual complex human societies), and that this is leftist indoctrination.

and the software teaching tool helps with the math aspect but not with thinking through the philosophical concepts.

> * The evolution of trust - a recent and high quality EE that explores how trust can evolve in a complex society, when it doesn't evolve, and how we can create systems to encourage it. Very intuitive if you know a bit about game theory: http://ncase.me/trust/

the opening screen of this one says that 2017 America is worse than 1914 german soldiers. and makes an appeal to the authority of uncited pseudo-science studies (the sort BoI criticizes, btw). this is very nasty leftist propaganda.

> * To build a better ballot - another recent EE that looks at various voting systems and the interesting and chaotic properties they present. (Aside: I think the combination of Arrow's theorem and the apportionment paradox heavily indicate that seeking objective truth will lead us away from such systems, but this is still a good EE): http://ncase.me/ballot/
>
> Finally, this new site has just launched with a compendium of EEs: http://explorabl.es/
>
> Although all the ones I've mentioned above are by Nicky Case, explorabl.es has more authors.

it's extremely hard to make stuff like this that actually connects well to good conceptual thinking.

and people need to put wayyyyyy more effort into having the right ideas before trying to educate others (that includes Paths Forward style discussions[1]). it's such a shame when people are making educational projects to teach ideas with substantial negative value.

[1] http://curi.us/1898-paths-forward-short-summary

Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com

[Max Kaye]

On 6/9/17 3:14 pm, Elliot Temple wrote:
> On Sep 5, 2017, at 9:25 PM, Max Kaye <m...@xk.io> wrote:
>
>> If anyone hasn't seen or heard of explorable explanations (EEs) you should definitely check them out.
>>
>> The idea is to provide a sandbox / experimental framework to help students learn about a concept in an intuitive way.
>>
>> My FI interpretation might be: it helps students *guess faster and better* than without such a sandbox (i.e. via a lecture or exercises)
>>
>> Here are some of my favourite examples:
>>
>> * Parable of the polygons - an explorable explanation about racism / segregation, how it manifests in communities, and how we can prevent it: http://ncase.me/polygons/
>
> i think the philosophical claims here are not implied by the math, and are basically unargued and false (and barely get any attention, there's just stated as conclusions at the end without any detailed explanations connecting the math to actual complex human societies), and that this is leftist indoctrination.
>
> and the software teaching tool helps with the math aspect but not with thinking through the philosophical concepts.

The philosophical claims are definitely value-laden, but I don't think
they're useless. They are conjectures, and even if they aren't directly
supported by the maths they should still be treated as real conjectures.

Calling it "leftist propaganda" seems a bit extreme to me. I don't think
there's some massive conspiracy, it's just one guy putting forward his
guess as to the way the world works, and more importantly *this might
help someone* who is less rational than Nicky Case, and if that happens
then I think it's a net benefit.

I don't think philosophical concepts are outside the reach of EEs, but
they're definitely subtler.

>> * The evolution of trust - a recent and high quality EE that explores how trust can evolve in a complex society, when it doesn't evolve, and how we can create systems to encourage it. Very intuitive if you know a bit about game theory: http://ncase.me/trust/
>
> the opening screen of this one says that 2017 America is worse than 1914 german soldiers. and makes an appeal to the authority of uncited pseudo-science studies (the sort BoI criticizes, btw). this is very nasty leftist propaganda.

**What? It does not. This is what it says:**

> "It was Christmas 1914 on the Western Front.
> Despite strict orders not to chillax with the enemy, British and
German soldiers left their trenches, crossed No Man's Land, and gathered
to bury their dead, exchange gifts, and play games.

> Meanwhile: it's 2017, the West has been at peace for decades, and
wow, we suck at trust. Surveys show that, over the past forty years,
fewer and fewer people say they trust each other. So here's our puzzle:

> Why, even in peacetime, do friends become enemies?
> And why, even in wartime, do enemies become friends?"

It **does not** say that we trust each-other less than they did then.

It *does* say ~"in 1914 some trust emerged in wartime" and ~"in 2017
some distrust is emerging in our society" and ~"Surveys show people
claim they trust each-other less". Now, that's not cited on that screen,
but it is cited at [1] (if you click on the last circle at the bottom of
the screen there's a link to footnotes)

Particularly (from [1]):

> "Fewer and fewer people say they trust each other"
> To see a thorough statistical take on this, check out Our World In
Data [2]. Mmmm stats

The questions Nicky Case asks in the above quote are not at all invalid,
and this time **your words are the value-laden ones**. If you want to
criticise the sources, go for it, but from what I can tell you didn't
even look.

Did you **want** this to be leftist propaganda?

Now that I go back and look, there are plenty of citations on the
"Parable of the polygons" too, and yeah, there seems like some
not-so-critical-rationalism in there, e.g.

> Look at Plz Diversify Your Panel, an initiative where overrepresented
speakers pledge not to speak on panels without diverse representation.

But there are other citations, and one can't just dismiss stuff as
leftist propaganda because a cursory glance gives one that impression.

(links omitted)

> Our cute segregation sim is based off the work of Nobel Prize-winning
game theorist, Thomas Schelling. Specifically, his 1971 paper, Dynamic
Models of Segregation. We built on top of this, and showed how a small
demand for diversity can desegregate a neighborhood. In other words, we
gave his model a happy ending.
> Schelling's model gets the general gist of it, but of course, real
life is more nuanced. You might enjoy looking at real-world data, such
as W.A.V. Clark's 1991 paper, A Test of the Schelling Segregation Model.

To speak frankly, I think there's a lot of BS on both sides of politics,
and there are some people on the far-left who are just as irrational as
people on the far-right; **however** our job as critical fallibilists is
not to dismiss something because it is not exactly true in every way,
often it's to **find the truth** and help advance that, without brining
the BS with us. And it's definitely not to criticise them because we
don't like them.

>> * To build a better ballot - another recent EE that looks at various voting systems and the interesting and chaotic properties they present. (Aside: I think the combination of Arrow's theorem and the apportionment paradox heavily indicate that seeking objective truth will lead us away from such systems, but this is still a good EE): http://ncase.me/ballot/
>>
>> Finally, this new site has just launched with a compendium of EEs: http://explorabl.es/
>>
>> Although all the ones I've mentioned above are by Nicky Case, explorabl.es has more authors.
>
> it's extremely hard to make stuff like this that actually connects well to good conceptual thinking.

Sure, but at the same time I'm aware of no better source than Nicky Case
for this type of thing, and even if you disagree with him, he does put a
lot of effort into this. None of us are perfect, but trying to improve
is possibly the most important thing we can do, and even if someone is
doing that in a way you don't agree with, the fact their doing it at all
is a good thing, even if it's not exactly as optimal as you might like.

> and people need to put wayyyyyy more effort into having the right ideas before trying to educate others (that includes Paths Forward style discussions[1]). it's such a shame when people are making educational projects to teach ideas with substantial negative value.

I don't think this has substantial negative value. In fact, none of
these projects have substantial negative value from what I can see. One
of them teaches us about how preference for context shapes our
decisions, one about game theory and trust, and one about the mechanics
of voting systems. Compared with some of what gets published online,
these are not harmful.


Max


[1] : http://ncase.me/trust/notes/
[2] : https://ourworldindata.org/trust

[Elliot Temple]

we could debate this to a conclusion if you were prepared to, but i think it makes more sense to instead approach politics via discussing Rand and Mises when you read some (and e.g. Ann Coulter and David Horowitz's Trump books for modern politics, but i think political philosophy is a better subject first). we could come back to this later but it's just a typical example of common stuff, it's not uniquely important.

in the meantime, FYI: i learned my position on this matter from DD.

Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com

[Justin Mallone]

On Sep 6, 2017, at 3:18 AM, Max Kaye m...@xk.io [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/9/17 3:14 pm, Elliot Temple wrote:
>> On Sep 5, 2017, at 9:25 PM, Max Kaye <m...@xk.io> wrote:
>>
>>> If anyone hasn't seen or heard of explorable explanations (EEs) you should definitely check them out.
>>>
>>> The idea is to provide a sandbox / experimental framework to help students learn about a concept in an intuitive way.
>>>
>>> My FI interpretation might be: it helps students *guess faster and better* than without such a sandbox (i.e. via a lecture or exercises)
>>>
>>> Here are some of my favourite examples:
>>>
>>> * Parable of the polygons - an explorable explanation about racism / segregation, how it manifests in communities, and how we can prevent it: http://ncase.me/polygons/
>>
>> i think the philosophical claims here are not implied by the math, and are basically unargued and false (and barely get any attention, there's just stated as conclusions at the end without any detailed explanations connecting the math to actual complex human societies), and that this is leftist indoctrination.
>>
>> and the software teaching tool helps with the math aspect but not with thinking through the philosophical concepts.

...

> Calling it "leftist propaganda" seems a bit extreme to me. I don't think
> there's some massive conspiracy, it's just one guy putting forward his
> guess as to the way the world works,

Propaganda (pertinent part of definition #3 from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary):

> ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause;

No mention of conspiracies.

-JM

[anonymous FI]

the leftist links are propaganda b/c they're dishonest. specifically the
person didn’t learn the conclusions via the investigation methods he
showed.

he had the conclusions first and then made up the reasoning second

and then presented it as if this is how one learns those conclusions

he's trying to lead people by the nose. and he's trying to get them into
learning/exploration mode, instead of debating mode, so they'll be more
receptive to listening to whatever he tells them.

it was trying to present a false connection btwn some
seemingly-impressive, mathematical, effortful, etc, stuff and then some
basically-unrelated standard lefty conclusions.

and there was no serious attempt made to connect them or discuss the
conclusions as if they required argument and analysis. the conclusions
were just tacked on to be taken for granted. think about this – then
accept that.

it was just math about arrangements and them, boom, racism! those are
not similar things. lots of bridging material would be required. you
have to be really careful about relating simplistic proxies (that are
easier to work with) to actual human beings. but the author chose not to
be careful about that.

the part you’re meant to think about is hard to argue with, and
that’s meant to stop dissent about the lefty conclusions.

it's like he was arguing the part that's easier to argue, then glossing
over the rest. except even that framing is highly biased. that assumes
the stuff he did argue is part of some broader, overall, more complex
argument for his conclusions. it assumes what he presented is partway to
making his case, when it's actually zero.

[Max Kaye]

On 6/9/17 9:21 pm, Justin Mallone wrote

> Propaganda (pertinent part of definition #3 from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary):
>
>> ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause;
>
> No mention of conspiracies.

Doesn't that seem overly broad? I mean BoI can fall into that definition
- ideas that were deliberately spread to further Fallibilism, and
encourages criticism (damage) to opposing philosophies (empiricism,
instrumentalism, etc).

Admittedly it also includes *allegations* and implies that one's cause
might not be just or right or have anything good in it, but in the case
where it's just ideas and facts that are deliberately spread, it seems
like this includes pretty much anything.

Maybe there's some meaning in the idea of *purpose*, in that BoI had
other *purposes* but the EE about polygons does not?



MK

[Elliot Temple]

On Sep 6, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Max Kaye <m...@xk.io> wrote:

> On 6/9/17 9:21 pm, Justin Mallone wrote
>> Propaganda (pertinent part of definition #3 from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary):
>>> ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause;
>> No mention of conspiracies.
>
> Doesn't that seem overly broad?

yeah.

> I mean BoI can fall into that definition - ideas that were deliberately spread to further Fallibilism, and encourages criticism (damage) to opposing philosophies (empiricism, instrumentalism, etc).
>
> Admittedly it also includes *allegations* and implies that one's cause might not be just or right or have anything good in it, but in the case where it's just ideas and facts that are deliberately spread, it seems like this includes pretty much anything.
>
> Maybe there's some meaning in the idea of *purpose*, in that BoI had other *purposes* but the EE about polygons does not?

FYI discussion of "conspiracies" here is informed by this:

http://fallibleliving.com/essays/rational-politics/92-conspiracy-theories

oh also you asked about public goods recently, and you're interested in proportional voting, so note the articles on those:

http://fallibleliving.com/essays/rational-politics

some of the content is by "The World". Setting The World To Rights was a politics blog where most or all posts were anonymous but DD and Alan were publicly listed as contributors in general.

https://web.archive.org/web/20080214124437/http://www.settingtheworldtorights.com:80/node/17


Elliot Temple
Get my philosophy newsletter:
www.fallibleideas.com/newsletter

[Max Kaye]

On 7/9/17 10:09 am, Elliot Temple wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Max Kaye <m...@xk.io> wrote:
>
>> On 6/9/17 9:21 pm, Justin Mallone wrote
>>> Propaganda (pertinent part of definition #3 from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary):
>>>> ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause;
>>> No mention of conspiracies.
>>
>> Doesn't that seem overly broad?
>
> yeah.
>
>> I mean BoI can fall into that definition - ideas that were deliberately spread to further Fallibilism, and encourages criticism (damage) to opposing philosophies (empiricism, instrumentalism, etc).
>>
>> Admittedly it also includes *allegations* and implies that one's cause might not be just or right or have anything good in it, but in the case where it's just ideas and facts that are deliberately spread, it seems like this includes pretty much anything.
>>
>> Maybe there's some meaning in the idea of *purpose*, in that BoI had other *purposes* but the EE about polygons does not?
>
> FYI discussion of "conspiracies" here is informed by this:
>
> http://fallibleliving.com/essays/rational-politics/92-conspiracy-theories
>
> oh also you asked about public goods recently, and you're interested in proportional voting, so note the articles on those:
>
> http://fallibleliving.com/essays/rational-politics

Ahh, I *used* to be interested in proportional voting (well, PR
specifically, and it's not that I'm no longer interested abstractly,
just not a proponent of it, except in certain situations where we have a
good explanation for it - not saying I have one, just keeping that door
open to the right idea, if one exists). I agree with DD's criticisms of
PR, but also have new criticisms of pluralism (e.g. UK / US) based on
the selectorate theory. For a run-down of the selectorate theory check
out [1]

My criticism of pluralism based on the "compromise" argument:

In order to satisfy key supporters, rulers (the government / ruling
party or coalition) are required to create legislation to benefit those
keys, and this is a constraint on how consistent their policy platform
is. The number of key supporters in a democracy is large and this means
their policy platform will necessarily involve compromise (since large
collections of different populations with different ideologies requires
some inconsistency between them), possibly in the same way PR produces
compromise. The Leader and keys then advocate for this compromise
because if they didn't it might jeopardise their chance of forming
government, and a compromise policy is the lesser of two evils from
their point of view.

> some of the content is by "The World". Setting The World To Rights was a politics blog where most or all posts were anonymous but DD and Alan were publicly listed as contributors in general.
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20080214124437/http://www.settingtheworldtorights.com:80/node/17

Thanks for the links.


Max


[1] : "Rules for Rulers" by CGP Grey. Even if you don't like his other
videos, this one is worth a look, I think. There is not much int he way
of extraneous conclusions, and I understand it follows fairly closely
from "The Dictators Handbook" - the book the video is based on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs