Well, where would you guess a larger fraction of people to be openly homosexual, in New England or in Appalachia? In which of the two would you guess more people go to college?

The accusation is not of sockpuppetry, the accusation is that VoiceOfRa downvotes comments regardless of their content as a "punishment" for the poster. It's still one vote, but some people feel it's... misused.

Fixed Jaynes link (no trailing period).

Well, lesbians certainly seem to be disproportionately represented among women with scholarly inclinations.

Edit: and an even higher proportion of women who stay single.

No, not quite. Counterfactual consistency is what allows you to link observed and hypothetical data (so it is also extremely important). Counterfactual definiteness is even more basic than that. It basically sets the size of your ontology by allowing you to talk about Y(a) and Y(a') together, even if we only observe Y under one value of A.

edit: Stephen, I think I realized who you are, please accept my apologies if I seemed to be talking down to you, re: potential outcomes, that was not my intention. My prior is people do not know what potential outcomes are.

edit 2: Good talks by Richard Gill and Jamie Robins at JSM on this:

http://www.amstat.org/meetings/jsm/2015/onlineprogram/ActivityDetails.cfm?SessionID=211222

I am going to publicly call for banning user VoiceOfRa for the following reasons:

(1) VoiceOfRa is almost certainly the same person as Eugene_Nier and Azathoth123. This is well known in rationality circles; many of us have been willing to give him a second chance under a new username because he usually makes valuable contributions.

(2) VoiceOfRa almost certainly downvote bombed the user who made the grandparent comment, including downvoting some very uncontroversial and reasonable comments.

(3) As I have said before in this context, downvote abuse is very clear evidence of being mindkilled. It is also a surefire way to ensure you never change your mind, because you discourage people who disagree with you from taking part in the discussion and therefore prohibit yourself from updating on their information. I do not understand how someone who genuinely believes in epistemic rationality could think this is a good strategy.

I will also note that I was the first person to publicly call out Eugine_Nier under his previous username, Azathoth123, at http://lesswrong.com/lw/l0g/link_quotasmicroaggressionandmeritocracy/bd4o . Like I said in that comment, I continue to believe he is a valuable contributor to the community. Like many other people, I have been willing to give him a second chance under his new username. However, this was conditional on completely ceasing and desisting with the downvote abuse. And yes, any downvoting of old comments made in a different context is a clear example of abuse.

The following links provide background material for readers who are unfamiliar with Eugine_Nier and the context in which I am requesting a ban:

http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/kbk/meta_policy_for_dealing_with_users/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/kfq/moderator_action_eugine_nier_is_now_banned_for/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ld0/psa_eugine_nier_evading_ban/

Edited to add: If I see clear evidence that VoiceOfRa is not Eugine_Nier, or that he was not behind the most recent downvote abuse, I will retract this message and publicly apologize

He seemed like a misogynist asshole

Care to define "misogynist asshole". These days it seems to mean "someone who believes there are behavioral differences between men and women and takes these differences seriously". Of course these beliefs appear to be true, or at least well supported by evidence. So the term ultimately seems to cash out as "someone who has a certain class of (true) beliefs that I don't like". If you meant something else by the term please specify and keep in mind you're using it in a way that is highly likely to be misunderstood.

I get your point that we can have greater belief in logical and mathematical knowledge.

That wasn't quite my point. As a simple matter of axioms, if you condition on the formal system, a proven theorem has likelihood 1.0. Since all theorems are ultimately hypothetical statements anyway, conditioned on the usefulness of the underlying formal system rather than a Platonic "truth", once a theorem is proved, it can be genuinely said to have probability 1.0.

That seems a solid enough explanation, but how can something of probability zero have a chance to occur? How then do you represent an impossible outcome? It seems like otherwise 'zero' is equivalent to 'absurdly low'. That doesn't quite jive with my understanding.

The snake which cannot cast its skin has to die. As well the minds which are prevented from changing their opinions; they cease to be mind.

Nietzsche in Daybreak: Reflections on Moral Prejudice.

http://www.lexido.com/EBOOK_TEXTS/DAYBREAK_.aspx?S=156

I wasn't aware of this quote at the time, but similar views were influential in my deconversion from Christianity. I decided that if I believed in God, that meant I needn't be afraid to subject that belief to fair tests of evidence or argumentation. In hindsight, I'm very grateful this was my view, unlike so many others I was lucky enough to avoid getting stuck in a stagnated belief system.

I now try to randomly change my priors every now and then, to the extent that I am able. I figure that either they'll repair themselves over time, or they weren't worth having in the first place. This means that I am less likely to get trapped in models at local maxima or to become stuck within any biasing cognitive finger traps. In addition to its utility as a tool, this emotionally involves a quite enjoyable sense of freedom for me. I don't have to be afraid of losing the truth, because reality is consilient. I highly recommend this technique for everyone here.