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.

SanguineEmpiricist comments on Open Thread, May 4 - May 10, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Gondolinian 04 May 2015 12:06AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (215)

CC Licenced

Tags: open_thread

Comments (215)

Sort By: Best

Show:

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

Comment author: SanguineEmpiricist 05 May 2015 11:38:08PM * -2 points [-]

No it does not necessarily mean that. Less wrong has an extremely concentrated individual of very petty people especially on the forums and it's quite suffocating at times. Everyone agrees with that fact in the bay area meetup communities.

Being lesswrong & learning rationality to overcome biases is a standard less wrong topic and nothing I said was incorrect.

http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/gs5/improving_human_rationality_through_cognitive/

People were making standard reasoning errors. If you are on less wrong and you do not think you can learn skills that confer you an advantage then you are in the wrong place. My argument was wider than what you were suggesting. Parents can easily teach their kids how to meliorate their wetware. My argument that Jayman implies lack of uncertainty/ignorance and that all utilities equate to zero was my argument and you did not talk about it.

We should only give the older members downvoting abilities like hacker news because a certain minority just ruins it.

Comment author: ChristianKl 06 May 2015 01:13:03AM 2 points [-]

Being lesswrong & learning rationality to overcome biases is a standard less wrong topic and nothing I said was incorrect.

Yes, that's not the part where your belief needs updating. This is not the first discussion on LW about whether parenting has an effect.

My argument was wider than what you were suggesting. Parents can easily teach their kids how to meliorate their wetware.

Yes, you add theoretical arguments to anecdotal evidence.

If creating benefits for children through teaching them skills is that easy, why do you think those benefits don't show up in the twin studies?

If you are on less wrong and you do not think you can learn skills that confer you an advantage then you are in the wrong place.

That sounds very much like motivated cognition to me.

My argument that Jayman implies lack of uncertainty/ignorance and that all utilities equate to zero was my argument and you did not talk about it.

I did take about it. Someone who says X is less important then it's generally believed isn't arguing that X has a zero effect. Treating him as if he would argue that means to strawman. It's generally more useful to steelman arguments than to strawman them.

We should only give the older members downvoting abilities like hacker news because a certain minority just ruins it.

I think you make a mistake if you think that you got mainly downvoted by newer people.

Comment author: SanguineEmpiricist comment score below threshold [+] (2 children)

Comment author: SanguineEmpiricist 06 May 2015 07:01:15AM * -4 points [-]

I talked this over with a large amount of people I have known know in the bay area rationalist community and I am correct, and they told me to just ignore it(and you). It's just a problem with posting on forums.

You have still failed to answer the one part of my argument I was referring to, if it has zero effect is has the integral of utilities set to zero which is completely false, it also means the probabilities are enumerated which is false, the study design only enumerates parts of the entire probabilities of the spectrum, that's what statistical analysis IS. If you do not see why the twin design study does not enumerate all relevant probabilities under analysis then you need to reed more. Sorry. Do twin design studies remove all uncertainties? No not really it depends on what we are talking about. Statistical analysis is not the whole picture when it comes to executing over risk, because there is a hard limit for the utility of statistical analysis for decision making which is why we hand it off to prescriptive decision theory.

I am fundamentally satisfied that I am correct afaik.

read the first chapter of this http://www.amazon.com/Assessment-Decision-Analysis-Bayesian-Networks/dp/1439809100 or get it from libgen

I did take about it. Someone who says X is less important then it's generally believed isn't arguing that X has a zero effect. Treating him as if he would argue that means to strawman. It's generally more useful to steelman arguments than to strawman them.

https://twitter.com/JayMan471/status/595063270190493696

Does it look like I'm strawmaning? I did not strawman any argument I had direct quotes and he has talked to me several times implying the same thing and in fact many people accept that those are his positions. He has directly told me it has zero effect. Read that quote and then read your ridiculous posturing.

Keith Stanovich's arguments apply to the entire human race as does the certainty & utilities argument. I have given you direct quotes and direct reading material which DIRECTLY STATES ALL OF MY ARGUMENTS. I've had enough.

Comment author: drethelin 07 May 2015 04:59:14AM 4 points [-]

calm down and stop arguing about someone using the word zero in a hyperbolic fashion. It doesn't matter, you're not convincing anyone, even Jayman probably doesn't actually believe the influence of parents is zero if you asked in a non-confrontational way. And even if he does: it doesn't matter. You're coming somewhere else and arguing about one random guy's views. You're getting really upset and confrontational about it. You're not adding any information and you're constantly talking past everyone else.

Comment author: SanguineEmpiricist 07 May 2015 06:30:27PM * -2 points [-]

calm down and stop arguing about someone using the word zero in a hyperbolic fashion.

Then we can merely respond to whatever range of the interval you think the utilities are. Read this

http://www.bayesianrisk.com/sample_chapters/Chapter%201%20There%20is%20more%20to%20assessing%20risk%20than%20statistics.pdf

http://www.bayesianrisk.com/sample_chapters/Chapter%202%20The%20need%20for%20causal%20explanatory%20models%20in%20risk%20assessment.pdf

or Risk - A Multidisciplinary Introduction all emphasize non-statistical risk measures. It doesn't matter whether it's zero or not.

"We discuss a simplified view of risk assessment and do not cover decision and utility theory except in passing and to make the point that such theory is not enough without coherent models of the problem situation. Most other books try to present decision the- ory and risk all at once and in a very mathematical way; this can be rather overwhelming."

Alright?

You're not adding any information

False. I have given further resources and people have not talked about them. Not every one is passive.

SanguineEmpiricist comments on Open Thread, May 4 - May 10, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

Article Navigation

Comments (215)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Open Threads

Recent Rationality Diaries

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (215)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login