Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Manfred 24 November 2012 05:55:40AM *  3 points [-]

Plowing doesn't even seem like a particularly feminine activity

The writer and danerys thought so, apparently, and it made sense when I read it. Maybe you mean cultural_expectation_feminine, and that diverges from what geeky girls playing D&D are more likely to do than geeky boys?

Comment author: FAWS 24 November 2012 06:31:57AM *  5 points [-]

The writer and danerys thought so, apparently, and it made sense when I read it.

My point is that I don't know what exactly they were thinking and that's why I'm asking. If they think that plowing in particular is a feminine activity that would make it somewhat more understandable, but it's not at all obvious to me from the post that this (their thinking so) is actually the case, and even then I don't quite see what was supposed to be signified since Christine was already regularly including things like making tea. Occams razor would suggest a single misapprehension the absence of which leads to the whole section to making sense more likely than multiple misapprehensions.

Comment author: FAWS 24 November 2012 04:13:40AM *  10 points [-]

I don't understand how Christine the female dungeon master who has apparently consistently been playing with approximately gender-balanced groups not accommodating plowing fits in here. Plowing doesn't even seem like a particularly feminine activity (compared to e. g. trying for peaceful relations with the elves).

Comment author: MugaSofer 12 November 2012 05:00:26PM 3 points [-]

there exists any political system under which immensely rich people couldn't wield a lot of political power to try to further enrich themselves.

Sure there does. A military dictatorship, for one.

Comment author: FAWS 12 November 2012 05:47:35PM 1 point [-]

Do you have an example of a military dictatorship where the immensely rich were allowed to keep their wealth, but couldn't use it to exert political influence?

Comment author: [deleted] 06 November 2012 10:15:24AM *  0 points [-]

Or, you know, they could weight suffering in a continuous, derivable way that doesn't make a fundamental distinction in theory, but achieves that result in practice; amputating a finger is worth more than a billion blood-pricks, one broken arm is worth more than a billion billion nudges, and so on.

Or maybe we're going at it completely wrong and the models for quantifying overall suffering are completely inadequate to the subject matter. If pain functioned like a sound, and that an order of magnitude increase would register as a linear increase, you could stack billions of the lower pains without the resulting pain registering very high. And so on.

Or maybe it's completely different than that. My point is, the dust speck question is more of a question on how human psychology of pain and reciprocity works than on the merits of some forms of utilitarianism and deontologism, which I feel are only approximations towards modelling said psychology.

Comment author: FAWS 08 November 2012 04:20:47AM *  2 points [-]

Or, you know, they could weight suffering in a continuous, derivable way that doesn't make a fundamental distinction in theory, but achieves that result in practice; amputating a finger is worth more than a billion blood-pricks, one broken arm is worth more than a billion billion nudges, and so on.

That's not (at all realistically) possible with a number as large as 3^^^3. If there is a number large enough to make a difference 3^^^3 is larger than that number. You say "and so on", but you could list a billion things each second, each a billion times worse than the preceding, continue doing so until the heat death of the universe and you still wouldn't get anywhere close to a difference even worth mentioning when there's a factor of 3^^^3 involved.

Comment author: johnlawrenceaspden 06 November 2012 01:18:36PM 4 points [-]

I'm completely baffled by questions 26, 29, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 on the iq test. (http://iqtest.dk) I think I must be missing something. Can anyone explain what the answers are and why?

Comment author: FAWS 07 November 2012 01:17:10AM 0 points [-]

26 - Ebjf, gur guerr yvarf ner svkrq ng n cbvag naq ebgngr. 29, 35, 38 - Zvqqyr pbyhza vf gur genafsbezngvba cresbezrq ba gur yrsg pbyhza gb neevir ng gur evtug ebyhza.

Comment author: FAWS 04 November 2012 05:43:35PM 20 points [-]

I wonder whether there are visible conversion effects on the redwood question for native metric users? Estimates slightly on the short side and neatly divisible by three because the quick and dirty meter -> feet conversion is multiplying by three?

Comment author: MixedNuts 04 November 2012 04:26:57PM *  5 points [-]

Intuitive answer:

Picture a horizontal line and points scattered around it. If there are many points, the line will be dark and there'll be a cloud around it. If there are few points, you'll get a vague shape and it won't be easy to tell where the line originally was.

Rigorous answer:

print [
len(filter(lambda x: x > 0.6 *per_day,
[
sum([ randint(0,1) for birth in range(0, per_day) ])
for day in range(0, 365)
]))
for per_day in (15, 45)
]

Thoughtful answer: Why would I bother thinking? Fetch me an apple.

Edit: For copulation's sake, whose kneecaps do I have to break to make Markdown leave my indentation the Christian Underworld alone, and who wrote those filthy blatant lies masquerading as comment formatting help?

Comment author: FAWS 04 November 2012 05:31:47PM *  2 points [-]

Edit: For copulation's sake, whose kneecaps do I have to break to make Markdown leave my indentation the Christian Underworld alone, and who wrote those filthy blatant lies masquerading as comment formatting help?

does
prefacing with 4 extra spaces work?

EDIT: Apparently not. Very likely a bug then.

Comment author: FAWS 04 November 2012 04:40:14PM 26 points [-]

Took the survey.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 10 October 2012 11:25:04AM 0 points [-]

The vast majority of possible statements of a given length are false.

That's surely an artifice of human languages and even so it would depend on whether the statement is mostly structured using "or" or using "and".

There's a 1-to-1 mapping between true and false statements (just add 'the following is false:' in front of each statement to get the opposite). In a language where 'the following is false' is assumed, the reverse would be actual.

Comment author: FAWS 10 October 2012 12:45:19PM *  -1 points [-]

That's surely an artifice of human languages and even so it would depend on whether the statement is mostly structured using "or" or using "and".

It's true of any language optimized for conveying information. The information content of a statement is reciprocal to it's prior probability, and therefore more or less proportional to how many other statements of the same form would be false.

In your counter example the information content of a statement in the basic form decreases with length.

Comment author: TraderJoe 10 October 2012 10:24:46AM *  2 points [-]

[comment deleted]

Comment author: FAWS 10 October 2012 10:56:54AM 1 point [-]

I disagree with this. The reason you shouldn't assign 50% to the proposition "I will win the lottery" is because you have some understanding of the odds behind the lottery. If a yes/no question which I have no idea about is asked, I am 50% confident that the answer is yes. The reason for this is point 2: provided I think a question and its negation are equally likely to have been asked, there is a 50% chance that the answer to the question you have asked is yes.

That's only reasonable if some agent is trying to maximize the information content of your answer. The vast majority of possible statements of a given length are false.

View more: Next