= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Andrew Gelman mentioned "the Kahneman-Gigerenzer catfight, or more generally the endless debate between those who emphasize irrationality in human decision making and those who emphasize the adaptive and functional qualities of our shortcuts." This looked worth checking, so I followed the link to the following statement by Gigerenzer:
The “half-empty” versus “half-full” explanation of the differences between Kahneman and us misses the essential point: the difference is about the nature of the glass of rationality, not the level of the water. For Kahneman, rationality is logical rationality, defined as some content-free law of logic or probability; for us, it is ecological rationality, loosely speaking, the match between a heuristic and its environment. For ecological rationality, taking into account contextual cues (the environment) is the very essence of rationality, for Kahneman it is a deviation from a logical norm and thus, a deviation from rationality. In Kahneman’s philosophy, simple heuristics could never predict better than rational models; in our research we have shown systematic less-is-more effects.
LW's dog in this catfight is probably on the Kahneman's side, but the debate is interesting.
Something tells me Gigerenzer is misquoting Kahneman, he is just saying any deviation from that counts as irrational and measuring that as his baseline, i'm more than sure he would be happy to use ecological rationality as a baseline as well.
What does Nassim Taleb think about existential risks and existential risk research? He sounds like a kind of person who might be interested in such things?
He liked Bostrom's new institute dedicated to existential risks. He doesn't think AI is a ruin-style risk, saying it requires "risk vigilance" but isn't a ruin type risk yet, and that he would be willing to reconsider later.
He has his own risk initiative called the "Extreme risk initiative".
Excellent piece of epistemology from Yudkowsky, someone put this in main right now.
https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10154067130774228
AllLivesMatterButBlackLivesAreEspeciallyLikelyToBeEndedByPolice AndItsOkayForNationalPoliticsToFocusOnThatPartForAWhile
Running this through my parser I was able to extract the statement "All live matter but black lives are especially likely to be ended by police and it's okay for national politics to focus on that part for awhile".
Yes, still downvoting. As Elo says, that's one way to find him, though there are others (e.g., some of his aliases have been identified very quickly, probably on style alone).
As for what he's doing, I think he's fighting a culture war. He doesn't really care if he keeps getting banned; he is still able to keep posting what he does, and upvoting it with his sockpuppets[1], and mass-downvoting people who conspicuously disagree with him in the hope of reducing their credibility (and maybe making them go away).
[1] That's a plausible conjecture rather than (so far as I'm aware) something known to be true. Conditional on its being true, I would guess that his socks probably also upvote other people's expressions of sociopolitical views compatible with his own.
=/ We should tell him the opportunity cost of this stuff is too large, don't run down the clock on your life. Eugine_Nier go get a more productive way to channel this frustration.
moderator action: Torchlight_Crimson is banned
Another account of Eugine_Nier / Azathoth123 / Voiceofra / The_Lion / The_Lion2 / Old_Gold is banned, effective now. This is an enforcement of the already existing ban, therefore only this message in Open Thread.
EDIT: Also Crownless_Prince.
What's going on in his thought process? Is he still downvoting people? What is he doing that's this bad? I mean i'm sure there's a good reason, but it's sort of strange he keeps coming back and not changing his behavior or not moving on to one of our tangent communities.
I've not dealt with him, so can someone explain to me what he is doing?
I recommend trying "placebo alcohol". That means, getting drunk for the first time, to get an experience of what it feels like, but to have a non-alcoholic drink the next time and merely role-play being drunk.
This is the exact sort of community that would delude themselves in exactly this department and would never stop arguing(not saying you do this), but if someone told me "Can you have fun/meet people without drinking", I would say "sort of, but you're better of just participating anyways".
When you drink with friends you learn why you were wrong, there's always going to be just that "one guy" who thinks he knows better though.
Drinking alcohol is very necessary for connecting with people.
This is so obviously wrong.
Alcohol may aid in connecting with some people some of the time.
This is just what nerdy types tell themselves and they come up with all these rationalizations for it, most peoples skillsets don't lend themselves for that type of socialization. These people just realize they were wrong years later when it's much too late.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Riemannian geometry is not an axiomatic geometry in the same way that Euclidean geometry is, so it is not true that "the only difference is a single axiom." I think you are thinking of hyperbolic geometry. In any case, the geometry of spacetime according to the theory of general relativity is not any of these geometries, but it is instead a Lorentzian geometry. (I say "a" because the words "Riemannian" and "Lorentzian" both refer to classes of geometries rather than a single geometry -- for example, Euclidean geometry and hyperbolic geometry are both examples of Riemannian geometries.)
First i've heard of this, super interesting. Hmm. So what is the correct way to highlight the differences while still maintaining the historical angle? Continue w/ Riemannian geometry? Or just say what you have said, Lorentzian.