= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SanguineEmpiricist comments on Financial Effectiveness Repository - 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 (62)
As usual, people completely miss the point. One of the people I respect intellectually the most is autistic, Curt Doolittle. As is one of my co-founders. Comments like this are so annoying.
They just trend towards 'objects', as opposed to 'not'. If you meet most Less Wrongers in real life you can see the extreme manifestation of this tendency.
You also notice how most, but not all of them
This is just saying that threads like these are dangerous. You're a good example of some one who completely missed the point.
If you find that people consistently miss the point of what you're writing, you might consider working to improve your communication skills. For example, I've read this sentence several times and I'm still not sure how to parse it: "They just trend towards 'objects', as opposed to 'not'." I appreciate that you're trying to tell me what I might be doing wrong, but currently you aren't explaining yourself very clearly or convincingly, so I'm not sure if what you're saying is correct or valuable.
I'm pretty sure the meaning of that sentence is: "The people I am describing are more interested in impersonal objects than in people, and cope better with impersonal objects than with people".
There may be some truth in that. But it's entirely unobvious why it should tell us anything about those people's competence to offer financial advice, and (despite SanguineEmpiricist's some-of-my-best-friends response) it's hard not to suspect an attempt to exploit the halo/horns effect. (Warning: link in previous sentence is to a RationalWiki page; RW isn't super-reliable in general but this page seems OK.)
Not quite, you explicitly called for a moderator to "overview this" implying that hoi polloi readers are not competent enough to decide for themselves.
And, of course, life is dangerous. The internet, in particular, is very very dangerous. It gives people ideas. Dangerous ideas...
"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to."
I meant a moderator in the context of moderated discussion, approved etc. Financial markets have a large skill requirement and a easy way to destroy yourself.
Alright what about a bet of 500-1.5k comparing risks that I have personally taken that inform my decisions say versus yours signed via openpgp key and how that informs our views. Done via escrow. I've seen people lose in a variety of contexts. People who have not taken risks make lame jokes like yours. People are providing stupid investment advice saying things that "sound good". Otherwise the blog Bayesian Investor should be sufficient.
More advanced mistakes.
So who bets what and how will the bet be decided?