= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
see comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 15, chapter 84 - 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 (1221)
Is that really it? Would you have been happier with, say, $20 against $400? I generally think of "almost certain" as indicating p≥0.95; the $5 was driven by the math of keeping your potential loss down.
And, not that I'm asking for you to actually answer, but ask yourself - is it really that you overvalue losses from gambling? If I were offering to put $2,000 up against your $100, would you still refuse because of the exact same chance you'd lose that exact same $100?
(I raised the odds to reflect p≥0.99 for pedanterrific because he implied that I was being a sucker for offering 1-for-20 odds.)
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that unless I am willing to tie significant amounts of money up for the sake of winning tiny amounts of money, I lack the confidence I claim.
It that didn't have the sound, the feel of a scam with it's a-sure-thing-isn't vibe it'd be a passable bullying tactic for the mathematically adept sort with something to prove. I've pushed people around for a living, so I like to think can appreciate a good push.
Or maybe that scamishness is part of the push?
The mark thinks himself a rational fellow, so he's unlikely to bolt. Bringing money into it makes the mark nervous. The mark mistakes his nervousness about money for doubt about his claim. You capitalize when the mark starts backing down, and claim some petty victory.
Seems like an awful lot of work for a small show, but thanks for the trick. Maybe I'll make something of it.
No, not at all. Not being willing to tie up the money is a perfectly sensible reason to refuse the bet. Opportunity cost isn't remotely connected to confidence levels; that I quite confidently expect a Treasury bond to pay me the promised interest doesn't mean I'd rather spend the money on something else that I value more.
And you certainly don't owe me an explanation of any kind as to why you refuse a bet. You merely owe yourself a good one instead of a bad one.
Then it would seem improbable that I'm putting the work in for the small show you identified, no? Not impossible, of course, but maybe you need a better theory of what I was trying to do.
I'm not saying it can't be used as a status attack the way you're suggesting, but this is a thing people do here. Something about calibrating confidence levels.
Huh.
Doesn't actually look like fun.
Good for them, though. I'll stick to poker and "status attacks," thanks.
Is there much here on status attacks?
When I accepted the bet by ITakeBets, it didn't feel like a status attack -- just that he/she was honestly evaluating the likelihood of the event differently than I was, and so we both had a positive-return expectation given our different models. And I had the odds enough tilted enough away from my confidence levels, so that it worth the bother of betting.
I'd most likely not have accepted a bet from someone that offered it in the way that "see" did though. And I'd not feel the need to offer any excuse other than "No, I don't feel like making a bet with you".
If anyone makes you feel like you're obliged to bet money, just refuse to bet -- you don't have to offer any excuses.
Thanks. Your reassurance isn't unappreciated.
When the Pedant One used the term 'status attack' instead of push or bully or buffalo, I thought maybe that indicated there were resources on the topic. I love the feeling when I find there is a developed system and language for describing and expanding on something I thought I was familiar with. It's almost always a game-changer.
This is a good resource. Actual 'attacks' are a little too Dark Arts-y to get much discussion on LessWrong, though.
Thanks. It's a nice list.
No DADA, eh?
Is rationality and a desire for self-improvement supposed to provide defense against Dark Arts as a side effect?
Here's something, but it would be good if there were more discussion of the topic, yeah.
It's better than that - the classic con is to make the mark feel like he's putting one over on you.
That is what I meant when I mentioned that a sure thing isn't.