= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
katydee comments on Sorting Pebbles Into Correct Heaps - 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 (100)
Winning is a truer mark of rationality.
I think it's more apt to characterize winning as a goal of rationality, not as its mark.
In Bayesian terms, while those applying the methods of rationality should win more than the general population on average-- p(winning|rationalist) > p(winning|non-rationalist)-- the number of rationalists in the population is low enough at present that p(non-rationalist|winning) almost certainly > p(rationalist|winning), so observing whether or not someone is winning is not very good evidence as to their rationality.
Ack, you're entirely right. "Mark" is somewhat ambiguous to me without context, I think I had imbued it with some measure of goalness from the GP's use.
I have a bad habit of uncritically imitating peoples' word choices within the scope of a conversation. In this case, it bit me by echoing the GP's is-ought confusion... yikes!