= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Open thread, Sep. 21 - Sep. 27, 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 (133)
I am also a big fan of NOT black-and-white worlds.
"Ultimately lead to less freedom" -- how do you know that? Can you show me some probability distribution of outcomes? How certain are you of it? What is the probability that you are making a sign error?
At the moment all I see is mood affiliation.
Broken homes means the government winds up having to resolve issues that should have been dealt with in-family, e.g., now the government must decide a lot more child custody disputes. Not to mention that children growing up in broken homes are likely to wind up on welfare and other government assistance.
I am entirely unconvinced.
Is that true for normal-IQ reasonably financially successful (former) families? I don't think so.
What do you consider "normal"-IQ and "reasonably" financially successful? Yes, high IQ and wealth can mitigate the problems of growing up in a broken home. However, putting most below-average IQ people on welfare is no something that is compatible with maintaining a high-freedom state.
This slo-mo poking isn't terribly exciting. Do you have a position you want to take, maybe quote some facts in its support? It's not like this discussion will affect real-life policies, so can we at least make it a bit more interesting?