Took it!
Did any one else have trouble copy-pasting the links?
I normally score insanely high on Openness to experience (says she of the massive amounts of really weird hobbies), but for this test, I scored really low on Openness. Must be feeling particularly close-minded today. Weird.
I scored really low on everything - in fact, I got 4th percentile Agreeableness. Not over-correcting for self-importance is hard!
ETA: I do actually have reason to believe that I'm not an extremely disagreeable person; I'm concerned that failing to acknowledge that or present those reasons made it look like I failed to consider that possibility.
Took it. I think the example of 0.5 being interpreted as 0.5% and not as 50% anchored me a bit, but don't see a way to circumvent it.
I think I noticed that, holding ‘objective’ (FLOABW) reasons to get sad constant, the less I have eaten recently the more likely I am to get sad. Has anyone experienced the same?
Yeah. I actually hack this somewhat; if I'm distressed, even if I've objectively had enough to eat, the ritual of snacking on something little often gives me the wherewithal to at least get myself to a less stressful location.
Thanks for making this! It's motivated me to copy and play around with your code, which I haven't actually done with code before and which turns out to be insanely low hanging fruit for learning. (Which you already knew, but I didn't.)
Is "choherent" a spelling error or an injoke?
Counterfactual Sex is a great band name.
As well as a much-loved pastime.
The thirty-fourth virtue of rationality is avoid sex at all costs.
Dammit, Spock.
sex is truly part of any rationalist
But you just said...
Less Wrong is not a cult so long as our meetups don't involve a cult.
Less Wrong is not a cult so long as our meetups don't include a sex maximizer.
The forty twoth virtue of rationality is "avoid universal rationality at any cost"
In the new version of Newcomb's problem, you have to choose between a box containing rationality and a box containing truth.
Humanity is the art of winning at torture.
Okay. I'm done here.
I think you may have misread the comment you are replying to. He said that this thread had a low signal to noise ratio, and expressed disbelief that anyone "honestly... learned something from this thread."
Thanks! I totally did misread the comment.
Honestly, I might just be filtering out the noise at this point - or having recently worked out how to point out that a comment is noise in a certain way might be helping me consider noise more of a learning experience and less of a blank field.
I'd say it's more guilt by association.
Today I learned that I should go re-read the Wikipedia page on fallacies.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
To any catcalling experts:
I look female. I go out on my own or with other female-looking young adults rather often. I live in a poor neighborhood. Why have I never gotten catcalled? I am ugly and dress unfemininely and shabbily, but Internet feminists claim this doesn't reduce catcalling much, and men do sometimes politely hit on me.
I'm curious about this as well.