= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
private_messaging comments on Should you try to do good work on LW? - 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 (32)
Originally made this account to message some people privately.
Can you explain why the first thing to update after the Galton's amazing study into imagination, was your opinion on women in general as determined by PUA's opinion on women vs women opinion on women (the balance of conflicting opinions)? Also, btw, it is in itself a great example of biased cognition: you run across some fact, and you update selectively; the fact should lower your weight for anyone's evaluation of anyone, but instead it just lowers the weight for women's evaluation of women.
Also, while I am sure that you did not consciously add it just for LW audience, if you were writing for a more general audience it does seem reasonable to assume - given that you are generally a good writer - that you would not include this sort of 'example' of application of the findings of Galton.
Quote from the article in question:
Does that really sound like someone who is doing a biased, partial update?
The PUA's opinion on women was, nonetheless, not discounted for the typical mind fallacy. (Maybe the idea is that typical mind fallacy doesn't work across genders or something, which would be rather interesting hypothesis, but, alas, unsupported)
Replied in accordance with your username to prevent this from becoming an Endless Back-and-Forth Internet Argument Thread.