DataPacRat comments on 2014 Less Wrong Census/Survey - Call For Critiques/Questions - Less Wrong

18 Post author: Yvain 11 October 2014 06:39AM

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

Comments (269)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: DataPacRat 11 October 2014 07:29:44AM *  4 points [-]

What is your preferred relationship style?

No explicit option for asexual and/or aromantic? (Or whatever the term would be for preferring not to be in a relationship, as opposed to not having a preference.)

Please answer on a scale from 0% (definitely false) to 100% (definitely true). For your convenience, 0% will be interpreted as "epsilon" and 100% as "100 minus epsilon".

For estimated probabilities that are greater than 99%, or less than 1%, how many digits of accuracy do you wish the answer to be? Just jump straight from 99% to 100%, or go for 99.999999% if that's honestly the best estimate?

What is the probability that any of humankind's revealed religions is more or less correct?

I find this slightly unclear; does 'atheistic Buddhism' count as a 'revealed religion'?

Comment author: ChristianKl 12 October 2014 02:28:32AM 2 points [-]

I think the whole point of the world "revealed" is to avoid referring to something like "atheistic Buddhism".

Comment author: fubarobfusco 11 October 2014 09:55:29PM 1 point [-]

I find this slightly unclear; does 'atheistic Buddhism' count as a 'revealed religion'?

Probably not. "Revealed religion" means something like "religion whose teachings are based on revelations from the divine to mankind". If you think that your religion was figured out, discovered, or intuited by a human being rather than delivered to him or her by the gods or spirits, it's not a "revealed religion".

Yes, this means Scientology is not a "revealed religion", because they think Hubbard discovered it. (Scientology is, however, a mystery religion, meaning that it has inner and outer teachings.)

Comment author: Error 11 October 2014 02:34:13PM 1 point [-]

For estimated probabilities that are greater than 99%, or less than 1%, how many digits of accuracy do you wish the answer to be?

I would be quite surprised if any of us could justifiably estimate any of those questions to an accuracy better than the nearest 1%/epsilon offset.

Comment author: DataPacRat 11 October 2014 02:37:58PM 4 points [-]

I regularly think in terms of decibans, where 10 decibans = 90% confidence, 20 = 99%, 30 = 99.9%, 40 = 99.99%, etc. From that perspective, there's as much difference between 99% and 99.9% as there is between 99.9% and 99.99%. Put another way, if 99% is the cut-off, then anything more than 20 decibans of evidence is ignored, even if the answerer has at least 40 decibans.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 October 2014 05:18:49PM -1 points [-]

And yet every year lots and lots of respondents answer such questions with 0 or 100.