Less wrong games

Related Pages: Games posts describing. Difficulty: Medium. Description: A series of duck-themed puzzles, each of which has different rules. Skills required: Basic puzzle-solving skills. Description: A series of key-themed puzzles, each of which has different rules. Difficulty: Hard! Description: A series of puzzles, connected by other puzzles, each of which have different rules, and most of which have a counterintuitive solution. Hints about the solutions are cleverly hidden in the game. Skills required: Advanced puzzle-solving skills, finding and interpreting cleverly hidden clues.

Hint: Gur cevagfperra ohggba vf lbhe sevraq. Difficulty: Hard. Description: A series of puzzles, each of which has a deliberately counterintuitive, and often malevolent, solution. Don't worry if you can't solve all of them, some of the solutions require specific computer hardware or software to win. Skills required: Interpreting deliberately counterintuitive clues. Guessing what the game designer could possibly have meant. Some of the puzzles require specific computer hardware or software to solve.

Difficulty: Almost Impossible. Description: A series of quiz questions and other challenges that have deliberately counterintuitive solutions. Skills required: Some questions require trivia knowledge. Some questions require logic skills. Some questions require "thinking outside the box". Some of the questions are solvable only by trial and error.

Some of the challenges require extremely fast reflexes. Many of the puzzles are blatantly evil. Do not expect to win this. You have been warned. Difficulty: Easy. Description: Given a plain white ball, a few tools, and a picture, change the ball to make it match the picture.

Skills required: Figuring out what the tools do, and how to use them in to achieve the goal. Description: Given a few parts, figure out where to place them to connect power from the power supply to the target.

Skills required: Physics-based puzzle-solving skills. Description: Given a few parts, figure out where to place them to make the metal ball go into the bucket. Description: Click the orange data ports around the edges of the level, to fire packets which interact with various objects, to eventually reach the green root node. Some levels require quick reflexes and precise timing.

Description: Click on some types of objects to make them disappear. The objective is to remove all of the red objects from the screen, while keeping all of the green objects on the screen. Description: Place the shapes so that they don't fall off the screen. Description: Guide the ball to the destination by cutting objects.

Difficulty: Advanced. Description: Construct complex machines to navigate from the start area to the destination area, or accomplish other tasks. Constructing machines with many interacting parts. Skills required: Anagrams. Block-sliding-puzzle skills. General logic skills. Description: Use a small set of instructions to program a robot to light a specific pattern of tiles.

Skills required: Programming. Optimizing code for limited computing resources. Understanding spaghetti code. Skills required: Programming in any language. Description: Create paths between nodes of the same colour, without the paths overlapping. Skills required: Visual-spatial logic skills. Description: Solve easy puzzles in a dreamlike environment without any hints.

Skills required: Figuring out what various objects do, and what you're supposed to do with them. Basic platforming skills. Description: There's only one level, just get to the exit. Oh, and each time you get to the exit, the rules change. Skills required: Basic platforming skills. The posts with karma totals in green disks instead of gray circles have been promoted. It is not possible to undelete an article if you delete it.

However, it is only marked as deleted, not completely removed. There is no easy way to get to deleted articles. However, if you know the article's permalink, then you can always get to it. Try looking through your browser history.

There will be a small note near the title of the article marking it as deleted. Note that, while you can edit the deleted article, it will still be marked as deleted. Instead of undeleting an article, it is always possible to create a new article and to copy-and-paste the content from the deleted article into the new article. Any formatting from rich editing should be copied correctly. Your options include: Post in the latest Open thread , or lodge a help ticket with the github source code for the lesswrong website.

If you have some coding skills and some spare time, we welcome assistance with the project of improving the site. Please do not vote solely based on how much you agree or disagree with someone's conclusions.

A better heuristic is to vote based on how much a comment or post improves the accuracy of your map. For example, a comment you agree with that doesn't add to the discussion should be voted down or left alone.

A comment you disagree with that raises important points should be voted up. In some cases it's probably acceptable to vote in order to register agreement or disagreement. For example, you can vote someone's proposal up or down based on whether you think it should be implemented.

There are a few principles of using words in discussion that are generally accepted as useful by this community. For example: don't sneak in connotations or endlessly debate definitions. We also have a community norm that semi-prohibits discussion of politics. See Is it OK to talk about politics?

Hopefully, it wasn't just because someone disagreed with you, but rather because you made some sort of reasoning error, or because your comment was poorly written, content-free, or ignorant of what's already been said on the topic in the Less Wrong archives especially the sequences.

Feel free to mention you're a new user and ask why you got voted down, or post in the welcome thread if you have a question related to karma or voting.

Different users feel differently about the feedback voting provides. Some feel LWers are bad at voting. Others aim for at least 0 or even higher on all their comments. We will still like you! In fact, you may find that you're respected even more than before, because you're known to be capable of changing your mind.

See the post It is OK to publicly make a mistake and change your mind for more on this. We're very keen on enforcing it as a community norm. The general rule is: Main tends to move slower than Discussion, and posts in Main typically get more exposure. Use this opportunity for additional exposure wisely. Main exists to encourage people to submit longer posts on the order of a couple thousand words or more.

Other factors that suggest you should post in Main include:. Note that you can move posts in between Discussion and Main after submitting them. One strategy is to submit your post to Discussion initially, then move it to Main if it's well-received.

A third option is to post in the most recent open thread - a weekly catch-all thread for asking questions, general discussion, and miscellaneous topics. There are plenty of places on the internet where you can discuss politics, and contemporary politics is explicitly NOT a core Less Wrong topic. That said, bringing up politics in the context of some larger point about rationality, as in this post or this one , is probably OK.

Less Wrong users definitely want to know if they're wrong about something. After all, we're trying to become less wrong, and we appreciate being corrected! Good contrarians are more than welcome. Thoughtful and informed contrarian posts are almost always voted up, sometimes massively.

But generally if a position is the "Less Wrong consensus", it's because there's already been a fair amount of discussion, and the consensus is LW's collective current best guess. If you say something that's already been said, or say something that's obviously incorrect in light of other points made on the topic, your post may be voted down for being noise.

In particular, if you want to do any of the following, consider doing lots of homework and ensure you're not making any standard mistakes:. If you have a question regarding a "consensus" view, or don't want to do any homework, consider posting in an open thread. Consider tapping out. Main: History of Less Wrong.

In February , Yudkowsky's posts were used as the seed material for a new community website, Less Wrong. Overcoming Bias remains Less Wrong's "sister site". If you want to know more about where in the world Less Wrong users are from, try these links.

See Raising the Sanity Waterline for thoughts on how religious deconversion can be a byproduct of increased rationality. Most Less Wrong users consider religion to be a settled issue, so before arguing for theism, we recommend you get curious and read some solid atheist arguments. Also make sure you aren't privileging the hypothesis. For example, if you found a knockdown argument for why there has to be a god, why would it be the particular god described in your religion's holy books?

Now don't go figuring out why it has to be your religion's god! You don't want to have the bottom line already written. Instead, start to figure out what sort of god, if any sort in particular, would be implied by your knockdown argument.

Let's assume for a moment that Less Wrong is actually achieving its goal of helping users think more rationally. If that's the case, we should expect users' beliefs to reflect their own individual prior beliefs less and less, and the actual state of the evidence more and more. Especially as users share evidence with each other. Why Our Kind Can't Cooperate is a good post that touches on why groups being in agreement isn't necessarily bad.

Of course, just because Less Wrong users seem to agree on something doesn't mean it's correct. The group belief could be a byproduct of an information cascade , or plain old groupthink. So think for yourself, always be questioning, etc.

And if you've read a fair amount about something and you still disagree with the apparent LW consensus, speak up so other users can learn from you and possibly update! It depends on the meetup. The default is probably one or more groups of people sitting around chatting.

Other possibilities include board games and structured rationality exercises. Check the Less Wrong meetup groups wiki page to see if there's already an established group in your area. If not, sign up to be emailed about new meetups near you or start a meetup yourself see next question.

Click the "Add new meetup" link near your username after logging in.