= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SanguineEmpiricist comments on Open Thread, May 4 - May 10, 2015 - 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 (215)
That's different then claiming that the effect is zero and that you can completely mess it up without bad effects.
The first comment is equally as strong. I'm having a running dialogue with him and he will come here and correct/clarify if necessary. Please focus on the topic at hand.
For once can we actually have a discussion?
edit: https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/no-you-dont-have-free-will-and-this-is-why/
My framing is coherent and correct
editedit: he said read this post https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/the-son-becomes-the-father/
When the goal is to focus on the topic at hand it's vital to understand the position on the participants.
Do you agree with the claim "Parenting is simply less important than most people think"?
I'm not sure what that means, we are not talking about normal people we are talking about people like us who can adjust to this. The goal is to understand what the upper-end people think and how they use their advanced epistemology to run their hedges/beliefs accordingly. He seems to imply from his "You do not have free will" && "Parenting has no effect" stance that it is irrelevant.
I am trying to get an idea of an interval of where parenting is for the advanced people. Fixing disorders/adhd with medication from a parents perspective vs a parent who doesn't will easily make a kid succeed.
ADHD meds are very effective while not being on them is very bad, so is teaching them valuable skills that other people do not know IS a good idea.
This style of conversation is important because the advantage of knowing even rudimentary decision theory gives you over say naive rationalism/'traditional rationalism'/naive empiricism.
If you don't understand what that means, than it would be useful to work on understanding. If you don't understand the position of the person with whom you argue you can't know whether or not you agree with them.
Clarifying where disagreement is isn't a side conversation. Do you believe that there are meaningful differences in parenting quality of US middle class people? (When genetics are factored out)
I don't agree that it is relevant and it skewers the conversation in a direction that I do not think is important or obscures the discussion.