= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Emile comments on Request: Interesting Invertible Facts - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (48)
I don't think these are exactly what Eliezer is looking for - these are statements that go against our natural inclinations, whereas I think Eliezer is looking like things that are (as someone said) "obviously correct in both directions", i.e. stuff we could rationalize as true either way upon encountering it.
I know what you mean, and I worried about that when I posted those examples. The problem is that I can't tell if I'm suffering from the hindsight bias when I'm trying to evaluate "Could I believe both this statement and its inverse, regardless of which one was presented as the truth?" In these cases, I can come up with fake rationalisations for both (even though one is more counter-intuitive), which makes me think that they might be invertible. They would need to be tested on people in experiments like the ones in the article by Meyers.