By "independently" I do not mean no interdependence. I mean not completely interdependent. You can't predict one perfectly just by looking at the others.

I posted comments on the paper here: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/10/shulman-on-superorgs.html

I didn't mean to be harsh or confrontational. Surely it isn't a mere coincidence that in the context of an institute devoted to figuring out how to create a good singleton someone wrote a paper about how ems would result in singletons. That isn't psychology, but social context. I'd love for more folks to study future em society, even if they disagree with me.

I respond to this post at Overcoming Bias

I responded here

They have common knowledge of their disagreement, not of the subject! They need not share "all pertinent knowledge"!

"Most peoples' beliefs aren’t worth considering ... dropping the habit of seriously considering all others’ improper beliefs that don’t tell me what to anticipate and are only there for sounding interesting or smart."

Seems you assume that most peoples' beliefs are "improper." Did LW offer you evidence for that conclusion? And don't you also need to assume you have a way to generate beliefs that is substantially better at avoiding the desire to sound interesting or smart?

It would be nice to have stories about heroes who are aware of and resist the temptation to make their lives into stories. Yes there are a few superficial moves in this direction, but I'd love to see something more systematic.

The obvious way this game is played is to offer specific bets, with specific odds and amounts. Then wait for a counter offer, or the absence thereof.

I don't think you know what "OK" means.