bgrah449 comments on False Majorities - Less Wrong

35 Post author: JamesAndrix 03 February 2010 06:43PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (36)
Tags: rationalization logical_rudeness disagreement

Comments (36)

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

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 03 February 2010 11:10:22PM 2 points [-]

You think that we can trust people to form judgments which are good, that they nonetheless can't explain properly? I agree, a little, but I wouldn't want to build anything on evidence of such low quality. Maybe I can accept it for things I don't care about, where understanding the primary evidence is too much effort, but I feel like I'm almost better off ignoring it entirely.

Comment author: bgrah449 04 February 2010 04:14:06PM 1 point [-]

Wasn't the book Blink all about this phenomenon?

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 04 February 2010 11:25:02PM *  1 point [-]

Apparently - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_(book)* - although I hadn't heard of it until now. I'm not sure it's an idea that justifies an entire book!

  • anyone know how to quote this url properly using the [ ] ( ) markup?
Comment author: ideclarecrockerrules 04 February 2010 11:32:08PM *  0 points [-]

anyone know how to quote this url properly using the [ ] ( ) markup

\ before )

So: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_(book)

Comment author: mattnewport 04 February 2010 11:30:19PM 0 points [-]

You can escape special characters with a backslash, use \) for a literal )

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit