= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gjm comments on Another treatment of Direct Instruction getting more into the technical details of the theory - 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)
Comments (33)
That would (I'd have thought) take quite a lot more than CDN$20 worth of time. (Unless I were just skimming through it rather than reading it thoroughly enough to be any use.) Though I'd presumably expect some nonzero benefit from reading the book, at least in the "99%" scenario, and that would need factoring in.
Also, how would the bet actually get resolved? I mean, in the "1%" case you're a Scientologist and willing to lie brazenly about the fact; conditional on that, other Scientologists are probably very unreliable too so I can't just ask whatever gathering of Scientologists is closer to what you say is your physical location (note: actually I'm pretty sure Scientologists are very unreliable anyway); so how could I be sufficiently -- well over 99% -- convinced?
I already thought of all that. You know I'm just trying to get you to read the books. :P
Obviously, we'd both have to give our bets (well, my money and your promise) to a respected public figure, someone like Eliezer being an obvious candidate in the context of LW, of course.
The other thing besides just trying to get you to read is that I'm annoyed that you still have such a ridiculously high estimate of me being involved in scientology as 1%. I think that from what you know of me now, and what I know of you, I should have a higher estimate of you being involved with the CoS :P
I did say that the 99% figure was very rough and I wouldn't trust it much. But yeah, I'm probably mostly "privileging the hypothesis".
Considering that you didn't even try to see if I was making a bluff by offering to bet me one cent against my $2000...
S=probability of scientology involvement
2000S<0.01(1-S)
2000S<0.01-0.01S
2000.01S<0.01
S<0.000004999
Again, assuming I didn't make any embarrassingly simple math errors, that's an over 99.9995% confidence that the 'scientology-related' hypothesis was wrong.
Not that this is factoring in the hassle for both of us of setting up the judging and so on, but still, right? :P
But "the hassle of setting up the judging and so on" makes something like two orders of magnitude difference to the probability estimate here. And why would I want to call your bluff in that way?