= 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 hard when you aren't willing to take a position on issues such as whether you believe that "there are meaningful differences in parenting quality of US middle class people".
If you want to have a decent discussion than it helps to be open about your own position.
That translates into: "I lack understanding of what other people are thinking." It suggests that your mental model is wrong and needs updating.
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.
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.
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?
That sounds very much like motivated cognition to me.
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.
I think you make a mistake if you think that you got mainly downvoted by newer people.