= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
FAWS comments on Bayesians vs. Barbarians - 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 (270)
That's your third completely unconnected argument, and this one doesn't make Japan and return missions assuming viability of straw drawing rational either. Even if the pilots are rationally maximizing some combination of survival and military glory that doesn't mean Japan bombing and return missions with most of the load devoted to fuel are an efficient way to gain it. You could have all pilots volunteering to be part of the draw for one way missions and those who draw long being reassigned to Europe or whereever they can earn glory more fuel efficiently.
You're assuming that straw drawing is viable. I'm trying to show why it wasn't.
You seem to have a theory, based on that invalid assumption, about what will and will not work to motivate people to take risks. Does that theory make any useful predictions in this case?
Then you are wasting everyones time, we already know that it wasn't viable. It was suggested and rejected. The whole discussion was about a) what would be needed to make viable (e. g. sufficiently high rationality level and sufficiently strong precommitment) and b) whether it would be the rational thing to do given the requirements.
No. I was taking your model of what will and will not work to motivate people to take risks and demonstrating that your conclusion did not follow from it.