You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

jimrandomh comments on [link] I Was Wrong, and So Are You - Less Wrong Discussion

17 [deleted] 09 November 2011 04:25PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (96)

Comments (96)

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: jimrandomh 09 November 2011 05:55:23PM 1 point [-]

“A dollar means more to a poor person than it does to a rich person”

"A poor person is more likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns than a rich person is likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns."

Huh? I don't see these statements as equivalent at all. If I try to map the second sentence onto the first, I get "Dollars mean more to a poor person than they do to a rich person". Use of the singular word dollar, to my dialect, rules out the "fraction of self-worth" interpretation.

Comment author: dlthomas 09 November 2011 06:08:02PM 2 points [-]

For that matter, where is a marginal dollar going to make a bigger hit to self worth?

Comment author: Logos01 comment score below threshold [+] (12 children)

Comment author: Incorrect 09 November 2011 06:41:42PM * 1 point [-]

You are saying that your interpretation implies the original question. But that leaves the possibility of your question being a stronger statement than the original question. If a libertarian denies your interpretation that does not necessarily mean they deny the original question.

In other words, it is possible that if "A poor person is more likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns than a rich person is likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns" is false that "it stands that n+1 is a higher increase in self-worth for the 'arbitrary' poor person (compared to n) than is n+1 an increase compared to n for the 'arbitrary' rich person." is also false.

In other words, just because poor people are not more likely to base their self-worth on dollars-owned than rich people, it does not mean that they necessarily do not value a dollar more than a rich person.

For example, a poor person may value the dollar more because it increases the amount of food they can buy to be enough to feed all their children. Perhaps they attach most of their self-worth to the ability to feed their children.

If your interpretation includes indirectly valuing dollars then the answer changes anyway.

Comment author: Logos01 09 November 2011 06:50:18PM 0 points [-]

You are saying that your interpretation implies the original question.

I'm saying it's an interpretation of the original question, yes.

But that leaves the possibility of your question being a stronger statement than the original question.

... my question, as I have proposed it, IS the original question. Or, rather, it's informational value is a subset of the informational value range available to the original question. Any assertions as to the potential strength of the original question, then, must include the rephrasing.

It's definitionally impossible for "what that statement means to me" to be "a stronger statement than that statement". It can be stronger than you intended -- but communication requires two participants.

If a libertarian denies your interpretation that does not necessarily mean they deny the original question.

I in fact offered up two mutually exclusive intrepretations of the question. The fact remains that they are re-expressions of the same original question, however.

In other words, it is possible that [...] is also false.

I agree unequivocably.

In other words, just because a poor people are not more likely to base their self-worth on dollars-owned than rich people, it does not mean that they necessarily do not value a dollar more than a rich person.

Again, I agree unequivocably.

For example [...]

Sure, no problem, absolutely.

Now please explain to me why any of this is relevant to the conversation at hand. :)

Comment author: jimrandomh 09 November 2011 07:53:21PM 0 points [-]

You are saying that your interpretation implies the original question.

I'm saying it's an interpretation of the original question, yes.

No. "A implies B" means either A&B, ~A&B, or ~A&~B. "A is an interpretation of B" means either A&B or ~A&~B, but excludes ~A&B. Let the statements be

(X) “A dollar means more to a poor person than it does to a rich person”
(Y) "A poor person is more likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns than a rich person is likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns."

You argued that Y implies X, but you didn't do anything to argue against X&~Y. I happen to believe X&~Y, which makes these statements definitely not mere rephrasings of each other.

Comment author: Logos01 09 November 2011 08:24:57PM * -1 points [-]

"A is an interpretation of B" means either A&B or ~A&~B, but excludes ~A&B

Let the statements be (X) [...] (Y)

Here's your error. There's a (Z).

(Z) "A poor person will suffer more for the lack of one dollar than a rich person will suffer for the lack of one dollar."

Here's what I originally said, broken into symbolic logic for you:

X ⊃ Z
X ⊃ Y
Y = ¬Z & Z = ¬Y

At no time did I say, however, that Y ⊃ Z. That assertion would be a direct contradiction of my last line in the comment:

Both of these rephrasings are potential "effectively synonymous" statements to the original question, but I hope that their answers are quite obviously inverted from each other.

Comment author: Incorrect 09 November 2011 06:27:46PM 0 points [-]

I hope you are not trying to poison the well.

Comment author: Logos01 09 November 2011 06:32:39PM 0 points [-]

I'm afraid I'm really going to have to ask you to explain what you mean by this. I find that there are too many potential reasons for making this statement, and of those I find to be remotely likely, I understand how they could be arrived at not at all.

Comment author: Incorrect 09 November 2011 06:55:10PM 2 points [-]

You are causing us to think of him as a "progressive". This encourages readers to become mind-killed with respect to him.

Comment author: Logos01 09 November 2011 07:07:08PM * 0 points [-]

This encourages readers to become mind-killed with respect to him.

I see.

You know, given what I've seen happening to the specific nature of the comment I make which get more than -5 score (For comparison I'm currently at about 50% of my peak 'karma' and am currently at ~-40 for my 30-day-interval) -- I can't really gainsay you on the fact that your concern is legitimate.

That being said; the mere fact that I have a poltiical disagreement with someone is, in general, not sufficient grounds for me to cease evaluating his claims on their own merit. In fact; I find it more conducive to have our biases exposed from the outset, and that is why I identified myself as a libertarian from my first post in the thread; to help allow the reader to identify and if necessary correct for any political biases I may have.

Comment author: FAWS 09 November 2011 08:17:59PM 1 point [-]

That being said; the mere fact that I have a poltiical disagreement with someone is, in general, not sufficient grounds for me to cease evaluating his claims on their own merit.

How would you know that? People usually don't think of themselves as biased, and are bad at evaluating how biased they are even if they acknowledge some bias.

Comment author: Logos01 09 November 2011 08:47:40PM 0 points [-]

People usually don't think of themselves as biased

I have been known to go to absurd lengths to counteract the possibility of becoming biased in a given situation. Am I perfect? Of course not. But practicing excellence with compartmentalization, and with counterfactualization, as well as with maintaining comfort in the face of constant doubt, are all good tools for allowing yourself to believe you are correct while expecting yourself to be biased. (This is intentionally inducing cognitive dissonance and then adapting to the presence of said dissonance.)

and are bad at evaluating how biased they are even if they acknowledge some bias.

Very much so. And I would not even begin to pretend that I am "perfect" in this area. But experience and the observations of others have shown me that I am the least likely person I know -- or have encountered -- to allow political, emotional, or biological (as in sexual, dietary, etc..) investment to interfere with my ability to take the outside view. Why this is so, I am not remotely certain.

I've also built up, over time, a laundry list of habitual behaviors designed to mitigate biases regardless of whether I am aware of them -- such as my habit of attempting to parse arguments down as far as possible, of demanding definitions for 'fuzzy' topics, of being able to persuasively reformulate the arguments of others in language consistent with their own positions (to demonstrate comprehension of their position as they understand it.)

Comment author: JoshuaZ 09 November 2011 06:20:35PM -1 points [-]

n+1 > n. Let "n" equal "the number of dollars the person owns". If "A poor person is more likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns than a rich person is likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns" is true, then it stands that n+1 is a higher increase in self-worth for the 'arbitrary' poor person (compared to n) than is n+1 an increase compared to n for the 'arbitrary' rich person.

The poor person and the rich person have different values of n so their marginal rate is different. That doesn't comment on how much of their self-worth if a function of their total amount of money. This is sort of akin to how freshmen calculus students confuse a function being small with it having a small derivative.

Comment author: Logos01 09 November 2011 06:27:52PM 0 points [-]

This is sort of akin to how freshmen calculus students confuse a function being small with it having a small derivative.

See my other comment to you with example numbers. We can discuss the probability of those numbers being accurate, but they demonstrate the principle at hand, and that is sufficient to my position here. (Again; I don't care one way or the other if the intrepretation is right -- it need only be demonstrated a valid interpretation of the question).

jimrandomh comments on [link] I Was Wrong, and So Are You - Less Wrong Discussion

Article Navigation

Comments (96)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Open Threads

Recent Rationality Diaries

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (96)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login