We all try to be stupid about it, but all sorts of biases will begin coming into play with nebulous criteria like that.
A model based on historical data becomes more trustworthy once it makes a prediction in a novel scenario. If the Phlogiston model tells you to predict that fire goes out when airflow is restricted, it doesn't increase the model's impressiveness because Becher knew that fact before he made the model.
You seem to have been saying that they don't
Yes, I was sort of saying that earlier when I was talking about generalities. But I am also in agreement with your previous statement, that they work for a subset of people who have certain goals.
We all try to be [I assume there is a missing "not" here] stupid about it, but all sorts of biases will begin coming into play.
That looks like a general argument against any kind of empirical testing.
once it makes a prediction in a novel scenario.
You join the Red team, go out to a bar, meet a girl you've never seen before. That is a novel scenario -- the alternative is to accept that the Red techniques work because of biological imperatives hardwired into all human females, something I think you'd be loath to do.
And not to accuse you of ra...
This is an experiment to use polls to tap into the crowd knowledge probably present on LW.
This is your chance to ask your multiple choice question you always wanted to throw in. Get qualified numeric feedback to your comments. Post fun polls.
There are some rules:
If you don't know how to make a poll in a comment look at the Poll Markup Help.
This being an experiment I do not announce it to be regular. If it is successful I may. Or you may. In that case I recommend the following to make this potentially more usable:
EDIT: Added recommendations from KnaveOfAllTrades.