= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
WrongBot comments on Eutopia is Scary - 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 (121)
I'm not sure whether this is a pro or a con for evangelism attempts, but a very large swathe of the poly community is of a new-age and/or neopagan bent. So on the one hand, they really could use some rationality. On the other, they're probably not very receptive to it.
As far as numbers go, I don't think I've heard any good estimates. Judging by the uptick in media coverage of late, though, I'd guess they're growing at a pretty decent clip.
There's a good amount of crossover with geek culture, too. I think it's growing into part of the usual contrarian cluster, if it isn't part already.
Ugh, agreed.
I think P(newage|poly) - P(newage) > P(rationalist|poly) - P(rationalist) > 0.
I also think P(poly|rationalist) - P(poly) >> P(rationalist|poly) - P(rationalist), which is why we see it as a Common Interest.
As an aside, I've been reading your blog since (I think) before you joined LessWrong; like Wei Dai, you're one of the connections I've made to a different community that has appeared here. I usually read it through RSS, which I think broke. You also appear to have abandoned your earlier blog posts?
I think P(X|E) - P(X) is the wrong measure - should be the log likelihood ratio log(P(E|X)) - log(P(E|NOT X))
I was feeling uncomfortable about that myself.
In all likelihood, I shouldn't be using probability at all, because probability theory doesn't capture cause and effect well. Thinking back, what I should have said is just that rationalists are more likely to adopt polyamory than polyamorists are likely to adopt rationalism. The actual ratios of each are less relevant.
To be clear, this is almost the same as the formula you gave; I'm just using the log odds ratios formulation of Bayes theorem
LOR(X|E) = LOR(X) + log(P(E|X)) - log(P(E|NOT X))
where LOR(X) = log(P(X)/P(¬X))
in other words LOR(X|E) - LOR(X) = log(P(E|X)) - log(P(E|NOT X)) the log-likelihood ratio, the weight of evidence you need to update from one to the other.
This comment motivated me to update my blog again, which I am quite grateful for. Has that showed up in your RSS?
My earlier blog posts were eaten when I screwed up the transfer of the site to Wordpress. I wasn't terribly happy with them in any case, but you're not the first person to indicate that they were better than I thought.
It didn't; I'm sure RSS also broke during the site transfer. I re-subscribed, and I suspect everything will work again. The re-subscription at least retrieved your two current posts. I really did find your earlier writings interesting and enjoyable. I'm not sure I necessarily need them reposted (I wouldn't classify them as reference material for re-review), but more like that would be appreciated.
Note that naturalistic neopaganism exists.
Looks like a failure of relinquishment to me. Are there any naturalistic neopagans who are not former non-naturalistic neopagans?
I don't see where you're coming from — the essay I linked seems to make it extremely clear that its author was never a non-naturalist.
Ah, got the wrong end of the stick from a skim read - thanks!
I think I would fall in that description. I see (and have always seen) my neopaganism as a philosophical expression of humor and absurdism.
Yes, many. Indeed, there are naturalistic neopagans who were not formerly neopagans at all, of any sort.
Ah. Thank you for that =)