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.

AspiringRationalist comments on Have you changed your mind lately? On what? - Less Wrong Discussion

25 Post author: Emile 04 June 2012 07:54PM

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

Comments (105)

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

Comment author: tenlier 05 June 2012 04:25:24AM 1 point [-]

Do you really have that preference?

For example, if every but one of trillions of humans was being tortured and had dust specks, would you feel like trading the torture-free human's freedom from torture for the removal of specks from the tortured. If that were so, then you just are showing a fairly usual preference (inequality is bad!) which is probably fine as an approximation of stuff you could formalize consequentially.

But that's just an example. Often there's some context in which your moral intuition is reversed, which is a useful probe.

(usual caveat: haven't read the sequences)

Topic for discussion: Less Wrongians are frequentists to a greater extent than most folk who are intuitively Bayesian. The phrase "I must update on" is half code for (p<0.05) and half signalling, since presumably you're "updating" a lot, just like regular humanssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss.

Comment author: AspiringRationalist 05 June 2012 06:27:28AM 2 points [-]

Less Wrongians are frequentists to a greater extent than most folk who are intuitively Bayesian. The phrase "I must update on" is half code for (p<0.05) and half signalling, since presumably you're "updating" a lot, just like regular humans. When you consciously think "p<.05" do you really believe that the probability given the null hypothesis is less than 1/20, or are you just using a scientific-sounding way of saying "there's pretty good evidence"? Might this just be that people on LessWrong have (I'm assuming) nearly all studied frequentist statistics in the course of their schooling but most probably have not studied Bayesian statistics?