= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwern comments on Open Thread, April 15-30, 2013 - 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 (459)
I'm sorry, I was just trying to interpret the claim in a non-stupidly unverifiable and unprovable sense.
It is not a claim, it is an assumption that the reader ought to take for granted, not verify. If I thought there were reliable large N data of a double blind on the subject, I'd simply have linked the stats. As I know there are not, I said something based on personal experience (as one should) and asked for advice on how to improve the world, if the world turns out to correlate with my experience of it.
Your response reminds me of Russell's joke about those who believe that "all murderers have been caught, since all muderers we know have been caught"...
The point is to find attractors, not to reject the stats.
ಠ_ಠ All (90%) of rationalist women who would not otherwise have become rationalist women became so because of Baby Eaters in "Three Worlds Collide".
Thus, we need 50 Shades of Cooked Babies.
As well as good marketing designs of things that attract women into rationality.
Does this strike you as dubious? Well, it is not a claim, it is an assumption that the reader ought to take for granted, not verify!