= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwern comments on An attempt to 'explain away' virtue ethics - 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 (24)
What was the self-assuredness of the 20,000? What was the self-assuredness of the 50?
What was the ability of the top 100, or 1,000, as against the top 50?
Does any of that really matter? This is the same person who thinks a passel of cognitive biases doesn't apply to him and that the whole field is nonsense trumped by unexamined common sense. (Talk about 'just give up already'.)
If the top 200 lie-detectors were among the 400 most confident people at the outset, I would think that relevant.
And how likely is that, really?
This is the sort of desperate dialectics verging on logical rudeness I find really annoying, trying to rescue a baloney claim by any possibility. If you seriously think that, great - go read the papers and tell me and I will be duly surprised if the human lie-detectors are the best calibrated people in that 20,000 group and hence that factoid might apply to the person we are discussing.
Seems like homework for the person making the claim, I'm just pointing out it exists.
Nit-pick, they could be the worst calibrated and what I said would hold, provided the others estimated themselves suitably bad at it.