Desrtopa comments on A Voting Puzzle, Some Political Science, and a Nerd Failure Mode - Less Wrong

88 Post author: ChrisHallquist 10 October 2013 02:10AM

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

Comments (180)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Desrtopa 10 October 2013 04:46:29PM 7 points [-]

Well, if it were really your goal to be resurrected by Jesus and live forever, and not just to be comforted by the belief that you were going to be resurrected by Jesus and live forever, then if Jesus didn't exist, it would be of prime importance for you to know that, since for there to be any chance of it happening at all, someone would have to make him.

Comment author: Lumifer 10 October 2013 05:10:09PM 0 points [-]

then if Jesus didn't exist, it would be of prime importance for you to know that

I am sure the fellow considered that possibility and rejected it :-) Or maybe he likes the Pascal's Wager.

In any case, getting back to the original issue, it was, to put it crudely, that Christians are necessarily stupid. That seems to be false on its face as there are a lot of people who believe in Jesus and are highly intelligent by all the usual measures of intelligence.

Comment author: Desrtopa 10 October 2013 05:25:03PM 3 points [-]

I am sure the fellow considered that possibility and rejected it :-)

Which is exactly the matter which, as Wedrifid pointed out, bears on the individual's intelligence and/or rationality.

In any case, getting back to the original issue, it was, to put it crudely, that Christians are necessarily stupid. That seems to be false on its face as there are a lot of people who believe in Jesus and are highly intelligent by all the usual measures of intelligence.

Nobody in this conversation made such a claim that I'm aware of. The point of contention originally raised in Wedrifid's comment was that religious conservatives may be intelligent and rational in spite of, rather than regardless of, their religious conservatism. That is, religious conservatism would be counterevidence to the overlap of intelligence and rationality.

Comment author: Lumifer 10 October 2013 05:42:40PM -1 points [-]

Nobody in this conversation made such a claim that I'm aware of.

I read wedrifid's post as stating that, in a bit more polite terms.

religious conservatism would be counterevidence to the overlap of intelligence and rationality.

So what does this actually mean? You see a girl, she looks intelligent and rational, you learn that she's a conservative Christian and you go "Oh, she isn't intelligent at all, my mistake"..?

Comment author: Desrtopa 10 October 2013 06:16:29PM 2 points [-]

How do you tell that she "looks intelligent and rational?"

If you have some other information that already screens off the evidence from knowing that she's a religious conservative, it doesn't adjust your probability, but if you don't, then you adjust your probability estimate that she falls into the overlap of "intelligent" and "rational" downwards.

If you know a particular human is three feet tall, but do not have access to other personal information about them, then it's possible they're an adult, but your best guess should be that they're probably not.

Comment author: Lumifer 10 October 2013 06:21:04PM -1 points [-]

How do you tell that she "looks intelligent and rational?"

By talking to her.

you adjust your probability estimate that she falls into the overlap of "intelligent" and "rational" downwards.

Would the downgrade from 99.999999% to 99.999998% be satisfactory? :-)

Comment author: Desrtopa 10 October 2013 06:28:19PM 2 points [-]

Would the downgrade from 99.999999% to 99.999998% be satisfactory? :-)

Depends how much information you already have.

I would say it would be awfully hard to get enough information to raise the probability of someone having both high intelligence and high general rationality to 99.999999% in the first place without finding out whether the person was a religious conservative or not, so I would say "possibly, but not in realistic formulations."

Comment author: wedrifid 10 October 2013 07:41:07PM *  3 points [-]

I read wedrifid's post as stating that, in a bit more polite terms.

I affirm Desrtopa's interpretation, as well as Eliezer's reminder about how conjunction works.

To reiterate: When you encounter "!(A AND B)" it does not mean "Let X equal whichever of !A and !B is most objectionable and claim that !(A AND B) is equivalent to X".

Comment author: pianoforte611 10 October 2013 08:09:16PM 0 points [-]

So what does this actually mean? You see a girl, she looks intelligent and rational, you learn that she's a conservative Christian and you go "Oh, she isn't intelligent at all, my mistake"..?

Not a very charitable interpretation. How about this instead: If someone is a conservative Christian then that fact makes it less likely that person is rational.

Similarly: If someone is deaf then it is less likely that they are a great pianist.

I can affirm that statement and still believe that Beethoven existed, without implying any insult to Beethoven.