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.

SquirrelInHell comments on Sleepwalk bias, self-defeating predictions and existential risk - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: Stefan_Schubert 22 April 2016 06:31PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (11)
Tags: x-risk biases

Comments (11)

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

Comment author: Thrasymachus 22 April 2016 10:21:07PM -1 points [-]

I'm not sure. It seems important to see whether there is sleepwalk bias is to try and gather a representative sample of predictions/warnings and see how they go. Yet this is pretty hard to do: I can think of examples (like those mentioned in the post) where the disaster was averted, but I can think of others where the disaster did happen despite warnings (I'd argue climate change fits into this category, for example).

Comment author: SquirrelInHell 23 April 2016 02:49:56AM 6 points [-]

This comment on Scott Adams' blog gives some suggestions:

World War II? Decimation of major fisheries? Genocide of North American natives? Sort of by definition, we haven't wiped out the whole human race yet, but we have endured some seriously bad disasters that people saw coming - and a certain amount of "that wasn't so bad" comes from the perspective of the survivors and the children who never knew how good things were before the disaster hit. Maybe loss of the chestnut trees isn't a big deal to people today, but if chestnuts were important to you - things certainly aren't looking so good in the North American chestnut department anymore.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit