= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
m_k comments on 2012 Less Wrong Census/Survey - 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 (733)
I wonder if I am the only one who thought that this "Get a random three digit number (000-999) from goo.gl/x45un" question was in fact a hidden rationality test, sort of "are you irrational enough to follow a shortened url that can lead everywhere, including a potentially dangerous or at least annoying website" and skipped it.
My prior for Yvain to be a good guy was high enough for me to take the risk (though I had briefly the same thought of yours).
By the same rationalisation it could also be a test for paranoia.
If you trust lesswrong to avoid referering you to a dangerous website than you should also trust Yvain to do the same.
[comment deleted]
The slippery slope argument is a classic fallacy.
Anna Salamon is the executive director of CFAR. Not trusting her but trusting LessWrong is indeed crazy. Karma points are not the primary way to decide whether to trust someone.
No, you're not. So I googled the URL, and was linked to your comment. :-)
I also considered that it might be a compliance test, going actually to a site that appears to produce a random number but infact gives everyone the same number, as a check for whether the person followed the instructions or whether they just made a number up, to save time following the link.
The link goes to random.org and is exactly what it says. If you generated your own random number from the same range that is fine.
I generated my own random integer and then worried that the intent had been for us to select from a biased sample.
Heh, paranoia. I generated the random number using different means.