JoshuaZ comments on A belief propagation graph - Less Wrong

8 Post author: Dmytry 10 May 2012 04:23AM

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

Comments (58)

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

Comment author: JoshuaZ 10 April 2012 01:35:03AM 1 point [-]

These are all highly correlated with other issues (such as lower average income, and distinct cultural attitudes). It may for example be that lower intelligence people have fewer opportunities and thus commit more crime, or less intelligent people may simply get caught more often. This is extremely weak evidence.

Comment author: Dmytry 10 April 2012 04:23:57AM *  1 point [-]

Why would those correlations invalidate it, assuming we have controlled for origin and education, and are sampling society with low disparity? (e.g. western Europe).

Don't forget we have a direct causal mechanism at work; failure to predict; and we are not concerned with the feelings so much as with the regrettable actions themselves (and thus don't need to care if the intelligent people e.g. regret for longer, or intelligent people notice more often that they could have done better, which can easily result in more intelligent people experiencing feeling of regret more often). Not just that, but ability to predict is part of definition of intelligence.

edit: another direct causal mechanism: more intelligent people tend to have larger set of opportunities (even given same start in life), allowing them to take less risky courses of action, which can be predicted better (e.g. more intelligent people tend to be able to make more money, and consequently have a lower need to commit crime; when committing crime more intelligent people process a larger selection of paths for each goal, and can choose paths with lower risk of getting caught, including subtle unethical high pay off scenarios not classified as crime). The result is that intelligence allows to accommodate for values such as regret better. This is not something that invalidates the effect, but is rather part of effect.

Comment author: teageegeepea 10 April 2012 03:51:26PM 2 points [-]

The poor also commit significantly more non-lucrative crime.

I found your top-level post hard to understand at first. You may want to add a clearer introduction. When I saw "The issue in brief", I expected a full sentence/thesis to follow and had to recheck to see if I overlooked a verb.

Comment author: [deleted] 10 April 2012 10:15:13AM 0 points [-]

Why would those correlations invalidate it, assuming we have controlled for origin and education, and are sampling society with low disparity? (e.g. western Europe).

I wouldn't call present-day western Europe a society with low disparity. Fifteen years ago, maybe.

Comment author: David_Gerard 10 April 2012 12:36:18PM 1 point [-]

What are you thinking of as different between 1997 and 2012?

Comment author: [deleted] 10 April 2012 12:55:37PM 1 point [-]

The purchasing power of middle-low classes is a lot less than it used to be, whereas that of upper classes hasn't changed much AFAICT.

Comment author: Dmytry 10 April 2012 02:36:07PM 1 point [-]

Still a ton better than most other places i've been to, though.

Comment author: [deleted] 10 April 2012 03:12:54PM 0 points [-]

I've never been there, but I've read that Japan has much lower disparity.

Comment author: David_Gerard 10 April 2012 05:06:30PM *  1 point [-]
Comment author: Dmytry 10 April 2012 03:55:51PM *  1 point [-]

I've heard so too, then I followed news on Fukushima, and the clean up workers were treated worse than Chernobyl cleanup workers, complete with lack of dosimeters, food, and (guessing with a prior from above) replacement respirators - you need to replace this stuff a lot but unlike food you can just reuse and pretend all is fine. (And tsunami is no excuse)