Um.

Probability of a head = 0.5 necessarily means that the expected number of heads in 1000 tosses is 500.

Probability of a head = 0.6 necessarily means that the expected number of heads in 1000 tosses is 600.

Next, they say the complexity of the global warming problem makes forecasting a fool’s errand. “There’s been no case in history where we’ve had a complex thing with lots of variables and lots of uncertainty, where people have been able to make econometric models or any complex models work,” Armstrong told me. “The more complex you make the model the worse the forecast gets.”

Counterexample: integrated circuits. Trying to simulate an Intel microprocessor is damn hard, but they work anyway. In general, engineers sometimes have to deal with the kinds of problems that this implies are impossible, and they frequently get the job done anyway.

Real probabilities about the structure and properties of the cosmos, and its relation to living organisms on this planet, can be reach’d only by correlating the findings of all who have competently investigated both the subject itself, and our mental equipment for approaching and interpreting it — astronomers, physicists, mathematicians, biologists, psychologists, anthropologists, and so on. The only sensible method is that of assembling all the objective scientifick data of 1931, and forming a fresh chain of partial indications bas’d exclusively on that data and on no conceptions derived from earlier and less ample arrays of data; meanwhile testing, by the psychological knowledge of 1931, the workings and inclinations of our minds in accepting, connecting, and making deductions from data, and most particularly weeding out all tendencies to give more than equal consideration to conceptions which would never have occurred to us had we not formerly harboured provisional and capricious ideas of the universe now conclusively known to be false. It goes without saying that this realistic principle fully allows for the examination of those irrational feelings and wishes about the universe, upon which idealists so amusingly base their various dogmatick speculations.

-- H.P. Lovecraft, Selected Letters, 1932-1934.

Real probabilities about the structure and properties of the cosmos, and its relation to living organisms on this planet, can be reach’d only by correlating the findings of all who have competently investigated both the subject itself, and our mental equipment for approaching and interpreting it — astronomers, physicists, mathematicians, biologists, psychologists, anthropologists, and so on. The only sensible method is that of assembling all the objective scientifick data of 1931, and forming a fresh chain of partial indications bas’d exclusively on that data and on no conceptions derived from earlier and less ample arrays of data; meanwhile testing, by the psychological knowledge of 1931, the workings and inclinations of our minds in accepting, connecting, and making deductions from data, and most particularly weeding out all tendencies to give more than equal consideration to conceptions which would never have occurred to us had we not formerly harboured provisional and capricious ideas of the universe now conclusively known to be false. It goes without saying that this realistic principle fully allows for the examination of those irrational feelings and wishes about the universe, upon which idealists so amusingly base their various dogmatick speculations.

-- H.P. Lovecraft, Selected Letters, 1932-1934.

My own summary of some points that are often made would be:

• If you build a society based on consent, don't be surprised if consent factories come to dominate your society. What reactionaries call the Cathedral is machinery that naturally arises when the best way to power is hacking opinions of masses of people to consent to whatever you have in store for them. We claim the beliefs this machine produces has no consistent relation to reality and is just stuck in a feedback loop of giving itself more and more power over society. Power in society thus truly lies with the civil service, academia and journalists not elected officials, who have very little to do with actual governing. This can be shown by interesting examples like the EU repeating referendums until they achieve the desired results or Belgium's 589 days without elected government. Their nongovernment managed to have little difficulty doing things with important political implications like nationalizing a major bank.

• Moral Progress hasn't happened. Moral change has, we rationalize the latter as progress. Whig history is bunk.

• The modern world allows only a very small window of allowed policy experimentation. Things like seasteading, charter cities are ideas we like but think will not be allowed to blossom if they should breach the narrow window of experimentation allowed among current Western nations.

• Democracy is overvalued, monarchy is undervalued. This translates to some advocating monarchy and others dreaming up new systems of government that take this into account.

• McCarthy was basically right about the extent of Communist influence in the United States of America after the 1940s. We have weird things like the Harvard Crimson magazine endorsing the Khmer Rouge in the 70s! or FDR's main negotiator at Yalta being a Soviet spy cropping up constantly when we examine the strange and alien 20th century. McCarthy used some ethically questionable methods against Communists (and yes most of his targets where actual Communists), but if you check them out in detail you will see they are no more extreme or questionable than the ones we have for nearly 80 years now routinely used against Fascists. Why do we live in a Brown scare society while the short second Red scare is by many treated like one of the gravest threats against liberal democracy ever? Why where western intellectuals consistently deluded on Communism from at least the 1920s to as late as the 1980s if they are as trustworthy as they claim?

• Psychological differences exist between ethnic groups and between the sexes and these should have implications for into issues like women in combat, affirmative action or immigration.

• The horror show of the aftermath of decolonization in some Third World countries was a preventable disaster on the scale of Communist atrocities.

The first three are meta arguments, that contribute to the last four which are object level assessments, that you can make without resorting to the meta arguments.

Here the optimal strategy is to choose "yea" with a certain probability p, which I don't have time to calculate right now

The expected value is $1000 (10 * p - 10 p^ 10). Maximums and minimums of functions may occur when the derivative is zero, or at boundaries.

The derivative is $1000(10 - 100 p^ 9). This is zero when p = 0.1^(1/9) ~= 0.774. The boundaries of 0 and 1 are minima, and this is a maximum.

EDIT: Huh. This simple calculation that mildly adds to the parent is worth more karma than the parent? I thought the parent really got to the heart of things with: "(because there's no reliable way to account for the decisions of others if they depend on yours)" Of course, TDT and UDT are attempts to do just that in some circumstances.

There's an easier way: look at the time.

Seconds are even? Type 'f'. Odd? Type 'd'. (Or vice-versa. Or use minutes, if you don't have to do this very often.)

A while ago there was an article (in NYTimes online, I think) about a program that could beat anyone in Rock-Paper-Scissors. That is, it would take a few iterations, and learn your pattern, and do better than chance against you.

It never got any better than chance against me, because I just used the current time as a PRNG.

Edit: Found it. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/science/rock-paper-scissors.html?_r=0

Edit2: Over 25 rounds, 12-6-7 (win-loss-tie) vs. the "veteran" computer. Try it and post your results! :)

I think this was how the heretic Geth got started. #generalisingfromfictionalevidence

Are you saying that under-privileged "Progressives" are typically devoid of a mechanism of self-control through guilt,

I was mainly talking about "privileged" Progressives, i.e., the ones who are intellectual descendents, and frequently also familial descendents, of Calvinists.

Here, for example, is the kind of disclaimer that can be often seen attached to "checklists" of white/male/class/cis/etc privilege:

In the context of these discussions of privilege, the "we're not guilt tripping you" disclaimers read like suspiciously specific denials, since they then proceed to engage in something that looks very much like guilt tripping.

Does this sound like the "party line" of left egalitarianism includes guilt-tripping Average Non-Diverse Guys over their lack of Diversity?

In this case I was referring to how both Calvinists and Progressives guilt-trip themselves.

In any case, if I'm misunderstanding what you meant here by

I bet that, if you saw a world where all people were truly "held responsible for their actions" (..), you'd recoil in horror and take that back.

could you correct me. Specifically, what do/did you think would consist of "holding you responsible for your actions" and why?