RobinHanson comments on The Correct Contrarian Cluster - Less Wrong

38 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 21 December 2009 10:01PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (228)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 22 December 2009 05:42:45PM *  14 points [-]

I've read that in the 19th century, there were many people who said that iron ships couldn't possibly float. If you take a few seconds to do the math, you can quickly verify that iron ships can float. That seems like a good slam-dunk to me. Is there a modern equivalent?

Some similar, not-quite-as-obvious former popular opinions:

  • Humans can never fly.
  • Humans can never reach the moon.

(Interestingly, the much older "sailboats can never sail upwind" seems more plausible to me than any of these.)

Contemporary unpopular slam-dunk-yes views:

  • Computers will someday attain human-level performance on any task you can name.
  • Technology can enable humans to live to the age of 200.
  • Evolution. (Still unpopular worldwide.)

There are culture-specific slam-dunks. I noticed, while traveling in China, particularly during an episode when the US bombed a Chinese embassy and when discussing the Tienanmen Square massacre, that most of the Chinese people who spoke openly with me (just a few) simultaneously believe their government is corrupt and untrustworthy, yet believed everything it said about those incidents. Numerous Russians I've spoken to have a blindness reconciling their views on Stalin with their views on Putin (the same attributes that made Stalin bad make Putin good). Maybe a foreigner should help us identify our slam-dunks.

There are some slam-dunks that are popular on the low end of g, and on the high end of g, but not in the middle range of g, e.g.

  • Men and women have different distributions of preferences and cognitive aptitudes.

Using these in your survey could contaminate the results.

Comment author: RobinHanson 22 December 2009 07:05:57PM 6 points [-]

Yes it would be good, but more expensive, to "survey" the opinions of folks from long ago, to see what were the correlations on views we now think should have been clear then.