= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Viliam_Bur comments on Open thread, 16-22 June 2014 - 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 (172)
We often see people offering rewards for compelling arguments for changing their mind. Examples would be Sam Harris), for a counterargument for his book, Jonathon Moseley, for showing that separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment, and perhaps James Randi, for showing the existence of supernatural abilities, could be included. Of course, this sort of reward scheme creates a large incentive to not change your mind. Some of these are clearly publicity stunts, but if I sincerely wanted good evidence against my position, what would be the best way to go about it? Possibilities include: * Giving the reward to the best submission, regardless of whether it changes our mind or not. * Giving a larger reward if I don't change my mind, to compensate for bias in favor of my position. * Having a third party judge.
Thoughts?
I guess you should give the same reward, to the most convincing argument, regardless of whether it really convined you or not. It motivates the other people to do their best, and does not influence you in making the decision.
I don't like the idea of overcompensating for biases. I understand the reason behind it, but I am afraid that this approach creates its own specific problems. For example, how much should you overcompensate? I mean, if overcompensating is good, then the more you overcompensate, the more virtuous you are...