= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I'm reminded of one of your early naively breathless articles here on the value of mid-80s and prior expert systems.
In response to
Dubstep and algorithmic information theory
All of your pretensions aside that's a pretty slick link.
In response to
My favorite popular scientific self-help books
Sad fact: I am still putting off The Procrastination Equation.
I read it. Luke's article here was more or less a transcription of the more interesting parts. The author essentially agreed. So you need 30 minutes. Set your pomodoro.
Because "signing" comments is not customary here, doing so signals a certain aloofness or distance from the community, and thus can easily be interpreted as a passive-aggressive assertion of high status. (Especially coming from Luke, who I find emits such signals rather often -- he may want to be aware of this in case it's not his intention.)
I interpret Silas's "Not necessary" as roughly "Excuse me, but you're not on Mount Olympus writing an epistle to the unwashed masses on LW down below".
Because "signing" comments is not customary here, doing so signals a certain aloofness or distance from the community
No. I am very confident the intention was to signal that Luke was not being emotionally affected by the intense criticism for the purpose of appearing to be leader type material, which is substantially not aloofness from the community.
It's not a convincing signal primarily because it's idiosyncracy highlights it for analysis, but I still think the above holds.
No. What did you base that inference on?
So you give me a firm denial, and then you edit out the first sentence which made it clear you were referencing contemporary politics, and clean up other sloppiness. I'll just move on.
In response to
exists(max(performance(pay)))
I take it you just felt like ranting.
Were there other observations of similar value in this book? If so, what book was it?
Oh yeah it's full of them. They are the kinds of things you say 'sure that makes sense', 'oh I've seen that used before', and 'man that's douche-y'. But I suspect they are all generally true and effective.
The book is: "Roger Dawson's Secrets of Power Negotiating".
I had a friend recently tell me that their company bought a license for a platform operating system for 75k$, whereas the initial asking price was 750k$. So somewhere in between those prices is a lot of value to be made by negotiating. It makes the engineer salaries a relative trifle.
In response to
The limits of introspection
I've noticed on your last posts that most of the studies cited are decades old; is that because this is considered a settled question in behavioral science, because a lot of these experiments wouldn't pass modern ethics standards, or something else?
typo:
when the subject was holding on two one cord ey couldn't reach the other.
Strikes me as a behaviorist -> cognitivist paradigm shift. Scientists just got tired of the old way (or more specifically, it simply stopped being new). That'd be my armchair guess.
edit :Someone better qualified should answer that. I'm not even sure that's behaviorism.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I'm reminded of one of your early naively breathless articles here on the value of mid-80s and prior expert systems.
this one:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/3gv/statistical_prediction_rules_outperform_expert/
Hmm yes, 'same evidence'.