= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Giles comments on [draft] Generalizing from average: a common fallacy? - 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 (14)
Offtopic, but:
Is this true? My map says that most humans exhibit similar behaviour in most circumstances, but that as social animals we are tuned to pick out the differences more than the similarities, so we just feel that everyone is completely different. If I've got this wrong then I've got some serious updating to do.
On a related note, if I type human behavior or human ethology into Wikipedia I don't seem to get a page explaining how humans behave, but instead get a few observations on how human behaviour is studied. Have I gone completely crazy here?
Any two things look the same if you look from far enough away. Any two things look different if you look from close enough in. Similarity, like probability, is in the observer, not the observed.
Missing that point drove my ontology wildly off course in a metaphysics course in undergrad. Seeing the obvious similarity between red things, even if they were reflecting slightly different wavelengths, led me to believe that Universals such as Red and Courage exist. It may be that that point should be pushed harder on this site.
Well, as far as attitude towards savings - or other topic being studied is concerned - yes the behaviour is very diverse. As far as human cognition goes - some people using mental imagery, some people not having mental imagery at all - ditto.
But what does 'very varied' mean? Well, too varied for the common methods would do. As varied as my atomic weight example.