= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
VoiceOfRa comments on Open thread, Oct. 5 - Oct. 11, 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 (346)
Only for such a broad value of "opinion" that Bayesian logic requires you to have an opinion about the number of apples in a tree you haven't seen.
I take it you never interact with people you haven't interacted with before.
Sometimes I do, but then I update my beliefs about them based on the evidence (or at least I try to -- I'm not a Platonic spherical perfectly rational being). In any event, even with people I haven't interacted with before I usually have more information than "appearances only", e.g. where we are, who introduced us to each other, and whether I have already heard of them before.
Assuming someone introduced you and this isn't someone you're passing on the street.
I was assuming that by "interact" in the great-grandparent you meant more substantive stuff than passing each other on the street. If you weren't, my point still stands: Bayesian logic requires one to have an opinion about strangers passing in the street, but only in the way it requires one to have an opinion about the triple point pressure of copper.
And hope they don't mug you as you do, for starters.
I somehow doubt that "opinion" in "If you already have an opinion on someone you've just met, based on appearances only, before you've bothered getting to know them" was meant to include stuff as vague as "they're probably not going to mug me", but whatevs -- tapping out.