= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on Rational Romantic Relationships, Part 1: Relationship Styles and Attraction Basics - 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 (1529)
Belief propagation is an exact computation that brains can't be expected to perform (or even represent a problem statement for). Pointing to (absence of) it as an explanation for compartmentalization feels rather arbitrary (similarly with the reference to decision theory).
What I mean is that if brains enforced belief propagation (and thus, were configured to do so), there wouldn't be compartmentalization. I guess I can clarify that by adding a period and a few words.
This doesn't mark it as a natural explanation. By the same pattern, I don't have a tail because I'm not a kangaroo.
But in fact, you don't have a tail because you're not a kangaroo. And if we were all fairly familiar with kangaroos and thought they were fairly analogous to Vladimir_Nesovs, then we would make note of the distinction.
Is the new wording still confusing?
I don't see how it helps. I think the idea is wrong, not the wording. This situation also seems somewhat analogous to that with your use of Aumann agreement term: drawing a loose analogy with a technical tool that isn't really relevant.
(To alleviate the usual worry, I note that I upvoted the post itself, and this trivial isolated point has no bearing on overall impression.)