= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on Negative and Positive Selection - 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 (262)
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.
Indeed they don't, though I'm not sure how it is related to my point that negative selection is not a total disaster.
Where am I?
On 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.
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".
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.)
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.
Why do you call it a bias? Maybe it's being less wrong than others who have a pro-academia bias.
What would look different if it were? (Aside from, say, the reduced chance of someone finding the Higgs.)
Then I would expect that once in a while some filtered out genius discovers something really exciting, against all odds, as I mentioned already.