= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobbBB comments on Open thread, Sep. 14 - Sep. 20, 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 (192)
I agree it matters in this case, but it doesn't matter whether we use the word "contrarianism" vs. tabooing it.
Also, your summary assumes one of the points under dispute: whether it's possible to be good at arriving at true non-mainstream beliefs ('correct contrarianism'), or whether people who repeatedly outperform the mainstream are just lucky. 'Incorrect contrarianism' and 'correct-by-coincidence contrarianism' aren't the only two possibilities.
Ok, so to summarize:
1a. If you believe futurists have more expertise on the future, then they are more likely to be correct about cryonics.
1b. If you believe expertise needs tight feedback loops, they are less likely to be correct about cryonics.
1c. If you believe futurists are drawn towards optimistic views about they future, they are less likely to be correct about cryonics.
2.These people are contrarians
2a. If you believe they have a "correct contrarian cluster" of views, they are more likely to be correct about cryonics.
2b. If you believe that they arrived at contrarian views by chance, they are no more or less likely to be correct about cryonics.
2c. If you believe that they arrived at contrarian views because they are drawn to contrarian views, they are less likely to be correct about cryonics.
I believe 1b, 1c, and 2c. You believe 1a and 2a. Is that correct?