hairyfigment comments on Negative and Positive Selection - Less Wrong

71 Post author: alyssavance 06 July 2012 01:34AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (262)

Comments (262)

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

Comment author: hairyfigment 05 July 2012 06:14:24AM 2 points [-]

While it filters out some good people, it probably does not reject the very best, otherwise we would see an occasional example of someone making a significant discovery outside academia.

If you still mean physics: why this confidence about the existence of low-hanging fruit? My grad student friend had to go to the LHC to work on (I think) his thesis. I assume they don't let people in off the street.

If you mean academia in general: have you forgotten where you are? ^_^

Comment author: shminux 05 July 2012 03:27:08PM 1 point [-]

If you still mean physics: why this confidence about the existence of low-hanging fruit?

Maybe there is some misunderstanding here. I'm sure there is plenty of low-hanging fruit still undiscovered. But you have to first get to that hard-to-reach orchard where it grows.

My grad student friend had to go to the LHC to work on (I think) his thesis. I assume they don't let people in off the street.

Indeed they don't, though I'm not sure how it is related to my point that negative selection is not a total disaster.

If you mean academia in general: have you forgotten where you are? ^_^

Where am I?

Comment author: Raemon 05 July 2012 04:46:28PM 0 points [-]

On Less Wrong, which has an anti-academia bias.

Comment author: shminux 05 July 2012 06:55:36PM 0 points [-]

Less Wrong, which has an anti-academia bias.

If so, this is rather irrational, given that probably every high-profile/high-status contributor to this forum, with the notable exception of EY, either works in academia or is being/has been trained in academia.

Comment author: wedrifid 05 July 2012 07:33:57PM 5 points [-]

If so, this is rather irrational,

It isn't so. It's more a relative thing---"not quite as extremely biased towards academia as the average group of this level of intellectual orientation can be expected to be".

given that probably every high-profile/high-status contributor to this forum, with the notable exception of EY, either works in academia or is being/has been trained in academia.

Luke has minimal official academic training too. Mind you he is more academic in practice than most people (probably most academics too, come to think of it.)

Comment author: pnrjulius 06 July 2012 11:00:41PM -1 points [-]

It's more a relative thing---"not quite as extremely biased towards academia as the average group of this level of intellectual orientation can be expected to be".

If so, then we're actually more rational right? Because we're not biased against academia as most people are, and aren't biased toward academia as most academics are.

Comment author: DanArmak 05 July 2012 06:32:03PM 0 points [-]

Why do you call it a bias? Maybe it's being less wrong than others who have a pro-academia bias.

Comment author: hairyfigment 06 July 2012 01:10:57AM 0 points [-]

I'm not sure how it is related to my point that negative selection is not a total disaster.

What would look different if it were? (Aside from, say, the reduced chance of someone finding the Higgs.)

Comment author: shminux 06 July 2012 03:09:30AM 0 points [-]

Then I would expect that once in a while some filtered out genius discovers something really exciting, against all odds, as I mentioned already.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit