= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Nick_Tarleton comments on Undiscriminating Skepticism - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (1329)
The prior probability would be much lower in this case. Pretty and non-pretty people don't form historically separated populations, and attractiveness isn't known to be correlated with numerous non-superficial genetic differences the way race is (e.g. genetic diseases).
They don't have to be physically separated to be reproductively separated. I think there is some segregation on attractiveness, but not that much.
Of course it is! There is a huge correlation with health, often revealed through things like parasite and disease resistance.
Those points are true, but I stand by my advice. I don't believe the difference in the amount of evidence required is tremendous, and it is a natural tendency among humans to underestimate this amount in any case.