James_Miller comments on Rationality Quotes November 2012 - Less Wrong

6 [deleted] 06 November 2012 10:38PM

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

Comments (898)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: James_Miller 02 November 2012 04:54:53AM 0 points [-]

What I'd like is for everybody to be far more skeptical of those who use math to intimidate.

Sean Davis discussing political polling.

Comment author: Nominull 02 November 2012 03:35:17PM 19 points [-]

I'd like everyone to be far more skeptical of those who are instinctively skeptical of math.

Comment author: James_Miller 02 November 2012 05:48:20PM -1 points [-]

Yes, and one of the best ways to do this is to reduce the perception among those with low math skills that people with strong math skills use math to intimidate.

Comment author: David_Gerard 02 November 2012 06:17:01PM *  6 points [-]

Davis' statement was not a generalised admonition concerning reasoning, but a statement made with the bottom line written (he was justifying ignoring Nate Silver). It's not entirely accurate to characterise it in general terms.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 02 November 2012 10:22:45PM 1 point [-]

I suggest we put this debate on hold, until say November, 6. ;)

Comment author: Nominull 03 November 2012 06:49:08AM 3 points [-]

It seems like calling into salience the notion of "those who use math to intimidate" would tend to increase the perception among those with low math skills that people with strong math skills use math to intimidate.

Comment author: James_Miller 03 November 2012 08:26:32PM 1 point [-]

If we increase the social penalty on people who use math to intimidate we will decrease the number of people who use math to intimidate and so on net might reduce the perception among those with low math skills that people with strong math skills use math to intimidate.

Comment author: TimS 03 November 2012 08:37:44PM *  3 points [-]

Doesn't the wisdom of this depend on whether those using math to win status conflicts are right on the merits?

If being good at math is sufficiently likely to make one win status arguments because one is right, the incentive on people to become better at math is probably worth the cost from people using high math skills to win arguments despite being wrong on the merits.

Comment author: Nominull 04 November 2012 07:09:41AM 9 points [-]

Changing the underlying reality seems like a rather roundabout and unreliable method of changing people's perceptions.

Comment author: James_Miller 04 November 2012 05:00:21PM 5 points [-]

In LessWrong terms, this is about the most horrible thing you can say about a society. It reads like an introductory quote to some hyper-Machiavellian book on advertising or political campaigning. Up-voted!

Comment author: Larks 09 November 2012 12:19:07PM 2 points [-]

If this wasn't on LW (and on the rationality quotes thread!) it would deserve to go on the rationality quotes thread.

Comment author: David_Gerard 02 November 2012 12:05:45PM 4 points [-]

Specifically, as part of the recent conservative criticism of Nate Silver.