= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Oh, and: hey! You're from Sao Paulo!
(My husband is from Sao Carlos, and his family still lives around there.)
Nice! Unfortunately there are not as many Brazilians in this site as one could expect., given our large population. If you don't mind me asking, where is he living now?
At then end of a year, which hospital will have the greater number of days in which more than 60% of the girls born over both hospitals were born at that hospital
Ah! Yes, that makes sense. Though you're right that the answer is obvious, assuming one hospital is much larger than the other, which I vaguely remember it was.
Oh well, way to make a good first impression.
(grin) More so than you might expect.
Hi, welcome to Less Wrong. We actually tend to respond pretty well to people who recognize and admit to goofs. We all do it from time to time, and it sure beats hell out of failing to recognize and admit to them.
That said, figuring out the failure mode and intervening to make it less likely in the future is even better. Any thoughts on that?
Someone made a post about this recently listing that and other useful practices (and I just saw you replied in there as well). I've heard about these checklists before but while I think it's a pretty important habit to acquire I haven't had the time yet to improve on those aspects nor have made of those an habit yet (i.e. I think it's important to improve but I don't actually remember to practice on my daily life).
Taking this checklist as an example, I think I can say that I failed to do 2.1 (when I said there were two probable interpretations without even asking myself the meanings of the 2nd one) while correctly doing 1.5 (when I perceived that I was mistaken and admitted to it instead of arguing for a side).
Would you know any tips on (or any texts about) perceiving these cognitive flaws while they are being committed or shortly after so one can promptly deal with them?
Cool, I'm glad I understood you.
Given that, can you say more about interpretation #1? It doesn't make much sense to me; I don't see how that question has an answer, so I'm curious as to how you're seeing an ambiguity as to which interpretation to use.
I mean, if I deal a 5 of clubs and a 6 of hearts and I ask you which card has the total across two cards of more than 10, it seems the correct answer is "both," or perhaps "wtf?" The same thing seems true to me of interpretation #1 above.
Ew, that was pretty stupid of my part, sorry. I was thinking in terms of
At then end of a year, which hospital will have the greater number of days in which more than 60% of the girls born over both hospitals were born at that hospital
Which is a different question altogether and still has an obvious answer... Oh well, way to make a good first impression.
Is it asking about the total number of babies born at the day or babies born at each hospital?
If I'm understanding your question correctly, you're distinguishing between the following two interpretations:
- At the end of a year, which hospital will have the greater number of days on which more than 60% of the babies born [summed over both hospitals] were girls?
and - At the end of a year, which hospital will have the greater number of days on which more than 60% of the babies born [at that hospital] were girls?
Did I understand that correctly, or is there some other interpretation you have in mind?
Those were the exact interpretations I was referring about, thanks. And just for reference, I answered the question as if it were #2.
In response to
2012 Less Wrong Census/Survey
I just took it but I'd like to make a few points:
At the end of a year, which hospital will have the greater number of days on which more than 60% of the babies born were girls?
Is it asking about the total number of babies born at the day or babies born at each hospital?
Redwood question.
Please, use meters next time.
In response to
Meetup : São Paulo Meet Up 2
Hey guys, sorry for the unanswered messages, I've been literally out of time those last months. Unfortunatelly I'll be unable to attend the 2nd meeting as well since I'll have exams at the university that very same day.
And even if I went I don't think I'd have much to add to your conversations, I'm still at the beginning of the sequences. Good luck, I hope to go next time.
In response to
Meetup : São Paulo Meetup
Hi guys, Glad to know there are active groups interested in rationality in Brazil! I'm living somewhat nearby in Rio de Janeiro, though I have family and friends in São Paulo. Unfortunately there's no way I can attend in the middle of the week, but good luck! Diego, do you have a link or something describing your work?
According to the Leverage Research's team page he directs the Institute for Ethics, Rationality and the Future of Humanity (Instituto Ética, Racionalidade e Futuro da Humanidade). They don't appear to have a site though.
I'd be glad to get more information about their activities as well.
In response to
Meetup : São Paulo Meetup
Hello! I'm not a "user" but am from São Paulo as well. I just pass here to read something or other every once in a while. I don't know if I'll be able to attend but I'll certainly keep an eye on this thread.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Done the survey. Nice touch at the end.