= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SanguineEmpiricist comments on Open Thread, May 4 - May 10, 2015 - 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 (215)
I'm not sure what that means, we are not talking about normal people we are talking about people like us who can adjust to this. The goal is to understand what the upper-end people think and how they use their advanced epistemology to run their hedges/beliefs accordingly. He seems to imply from his "You do not have free will" && "Parenting has no effect" stance that it is irrelevant.
I am trying to get an idea of an interval of where parenting is for the advanced people. Fixing disorders/adhd with medication from a parents perspective vs a parent who doesn't will easily make a kid succeed.
ADHD meds are very effective while not being on them is very bad, so is teaching them valuable skills that other people do not know IS a good idea.
This style of conversation is important because the advantage of knowing even rudimentary decision theory gives you over say naive rationalism/'traditional rationalism'/naive empiricism.
If you don't understand what that means, than it would be useful to work on understanding. If you don't understand the position of the person with whom you argue you can't know whether or not you agree with them.
Clarifying where disagreement is isn't a side conversation. Do you believe that there are meaningful differences in parenting quality of US middle class people? (When genetics are factored out)
I don't agree that it is relevant and it skewers the conversation in a direction that I do not think is important or obscures the discussion.