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

Comment author: John_Maxwell 26 February 2009 05:36:03AM 3 points [-]

Eliezer does a good job of explaining a mechanism by which two investments with negatively correlated returns can switch to having positively correlated returns. But he doesn't do a good job of convincing me that a stock's price has a tendency to go down when it has just gone up, and vice versa.

I can think of an argument against this position. It seems plausible that stock traders see the past movement of a stock as an indicator of it's future movement. If a majority of traders share this belief, this will compel them to buy the stock from those who don't, inflating it's value and reinforcing the cycle. This would indicate that markets are inductive, which is the opposite of what the title suggests.

Comment author: MTGandP 04 September 2017 08:36:18PM 0 points [-]

At some point, all traders with this belief will have already bought the stock and the price will stop going up at that point, thus making the price movement anti-inductive.

Comment author: MTGandP 08 November 2012 05:09:45AM 1 point [-]

That's another thing. Precise grammar used to indicate education, but now it mostly signals pedantism.

I've noticed that different groups correct grammar to different degrees. Many people (e.g. almost everyone on reddit) will correct you if you mix up they're/there/their or use an apostrophe incorrectly, but not very many people will say anything if you dangle a modifier or split an infinitive. And the same people who readily correct well-known errors (they're/there/their) don't like it if you correct a more obscure error.

Comment author: MTGandP 08 November 2016 03:37:02AM 0 points [-]

I'm tempted to correct my past self's grammar by pointing out that "e.g." should be followed by a comma.

Comment author: Houshalter 26 March 2016 03:48:53AM 43 points [-]

I took the survey 2 days ago. It was fun. I think I was well calibrated for those calibration questions, but sadly there was no "results" section.

Comment author: MTGandP 26 March 2016 04:42:51PM 6 points [-]

Is it possible to self-consistently believe you're poorly calibrated? If you believe you're overconfident then you would start making less confident predictions right?

Comment author: Huluk 26 March 2016 12:55:37AM *  26 points [-]

[Survey Taken Thread]

By ancient tradition, if you take the survey you may comment saying you have done so here, and people will upvote you and you will get karma.

Let's make these comments a reply to this post. That way we continue the tradition, but keep the discussion a bit cleaner.

Comment author: MTGandP 26 March 2016 04:41:23PM *  40 points [-]

The survey has been taken by me.

Comment author: MTGandP 26 March 2016 04:19:27PM 14 points [-]

The question "How Long Since You Last Posted On LessWrong?" is ambiguous--I don't know if posting includes comments or just top-level posts.

Comment author: Soothsilver 18 January 2016 02:29:48PM 0 points [-]

It's not silly. I still find these newer comments useful.

Comment author: MTGandP 29 January 2016 01:06:55AM 0 points [-]

And here we are one year later!

In response to Prices or Bindings?
Comment author: MTGandP 17 September 2015 03:54:44PM 0 points [-]

Can you imagine a Hollywood movie in which the hero did that, instead of coming up with some amazing clever way to save the civilians on the ship?

Jack Bauer might do it.

Comment author: MBlume 20 April 2009 05:22:00PM 6 points [-]

I have been in a happy, mutually satisfying romantic/sexual relationship once in my life. We had one good year together, and it was The. Best. Year. Of. My. Life. I know people say that when something good happens to you, you soon adjust, and you wind up as happy or as sad as you were before, but that was simply not my experience. I'd give just about anything to have that again. Such is my utility function, and I do not intend to tamper with it.

Comment author: MTGandP 07 July 2015 04:59:12AM 3 points [-]

This is really remarkable to read six years later, since, although I don't know you personally, I know your reputation as That Guy Who Has Really Awesome Idyllic Relationships.

Comment author: MaxNanasy 01 February 2015 11:45:16AM 0 points [-]

But what if you're hallucinating the increase in mental capacity and resulting discernment?

Comment author: MTGandP 06 February 2015 11:51:25PM *  1 point [-]

It may be theoretically possible to increase my mental capacity in some way such that I can distinguish mental capacity from hallucination. I cannot conceive of how that would be done, but it may be possible.

P.S. I love when people reply to comments that are two and a half years old. It feels like we're talking to the past.

Comment author: skepsci 28 February 2012 05:48:53AM 4 points [-]

It's also completely ridiculous, with a sample size of ~10 questions, to give the success rate and probability of being well calibrated as percentages with 12 decimals. Since the uncertainty in such a small sample is on the order of several percent, just round to the nearest percentage.

Comment author: MTGandP 11 January 2015 05:57:27AM 0 points [-]

It probably just computes it as a float and then prints the whole float.

(I do recognize the silliness of replying to a three-year old comment that itself is replying to a six-year old comment.)

View more: Next