= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
The PDF/journal copy seems to be up now: http://clinicalschizophrenia.org/doi/abs/10.3371/CSRP.SCST.103114?journalCode=csrp (PDF). Can't get to it through Sci-hub, but maybe your university access can get it now?
Still can't get it. I should be able to access it through an institutional subscription to the EBSCO database once the paper is assigned to an issue, replacing its current "online first" designation.
In response to
Open thread, Nov. 30 - Dec. 06, 2015
A paper.
Abstract:
Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingenuous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation. Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented participants with bullshit statements consisting of buzzwords randomly organized into statements with syntactic structure but no discernible meaning (e.g., “Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena”). Across multiple studies, the propensity to judge bullshit statements as profound was associated with a variety of conceptually relevant variables (e.g., intuitive cognitive style, supernatural belief). Parallel associations were less evident among profundity judgments for more conventionally profound (e.g., “A wet person does not fear the rain”) or mundane (e.g., “Newborn babies require constant attention”) statements. These results support the idea that some people are more receptive to this type of bullshit and that detecting it is not merely a matter of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagueness in otherwise impressive sounding claims. Our results also suggest that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an important component of pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity.
Nice paper.
p. 558 (Study 4):
Participants also completed a ten item personality scale (Gosling, Rentfrow & Swann, 2003) [the TIPI; an alternative is Rammstedt and John's BFI-10] that indexes individual differences in the Big Five personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness). These data will not be considered further.
It's strange not to say why the data will not be considered further. The data are available, the reduction is clean, but the keys look a bit too skeletal given that copies of the orignal surveys don't seem to be available (perhaps because Raven's APM and possibly some other scales are copyrighted). Still, it's great of the journal and the authors to provide the data. Anyway, I'll take a look.
The supplement contains the statements and the corresponding descriptive statistics for their profundity ratings. It's an entertaining read.
ETA: For additional doses of profundity, use Armok_GoB's profound LW wisdom generator.
In response to
LessWrong Help Desk - free paper downloads and more (2014)
- Utts, J. (1988). "Successful replication versus statistical significance". Journal of Parapsychology, 52(4): 305-320 (/r/scholar couldn't provide it.)
In response to
LessWrong Help Desk - free paper downloads and more (2014)
- Utts, J. (1988). "Successful replication versus statistical significance". Journal of Parapsychology, 52(4): 305-320 (/r/scholar couldn't provide it.)
Requested.
In response to
Open thread, Nov. 09 - Nov. 15, 2015
The trolley problem on steroids.
See also Patton's (1988) "Can bad men make good brains do bad things?" (AKA "Brain in a vat on a trolley"), published in APA Proceedings.
In response to
LessWrong Help Desk - free paper downloads and more (2014)
it blew up to 14M
The object streams for indirect objects have been unpacked and stripped away, leaving their contents uncompressed. Use qpdf to regenerate compressed object streams:
qpdf --object-streams=generate in.pdf out.pdf
(The --stream-data=compress option is already set by default.)
While you are at it, might as well re-linearize the PDF for online readers with low bandwidth:
qpdf --object-streams=generate --linearize in.pdf out.pdf
In response to
LessWrong Help Desk - free paper downloads and more (2014)
Applied Statistical Decision Theory, Raiffa & Schlaifer 1961 (not to be confused with their 1995 or 1959 decision theory textbooks).
Not on Libgen, Google Books, Google Scholar, the Chinese library site, or in any of the Google hits I found despite all the book review PDFs. I found a table of contents for it, and googled some chapter titles in quotes, but only turned up the same table of contents, so it really doesn't seem to be online in the clear. Betawolf discovered that an online copy does seem to exist at HathiTrust, which seems to think that the book is somehow in the public domain as unlikely as that may sound, and can be downloaded by people at a variety of institutions such as UMich, UWash, etc, but in this case, my UWash proxy doesn't work (it gets me IP-based access to stuff, but not account-login-based access, which HathiTrust seems to be.) Can anyone download it? (EDIT: the 1-page-at-a-time PDF download does work so I am scripting that right now as for i in {1..394}; do sleep 60s; wget "<http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/imgsrv/download/pdf?id=mdp.39015022416351;orient=0;size=100;seq=$i;attachment=0>" -O $i.pdf; done, but if someone can get the whole PDF, that'd be better since then I know nothing was left out and all the metadata will be intact.)
If not, I will buy a used copy ($16-25 on Amazon & AbeBooks) and try out 1DollarScan.
On a historical note, besides compiling many results and being one of the key texts of the 1960s Bayesian revolution, apparently this is the book which introduced the general concept of conjugate distributions into Bayesian statistics, which I had always assumed had been introduced by Laplace or someone early on like that since they are so critical to pre-MCMC analyses.
Got the whole PDF from HathiTrust. I think Chart I is missing from the scan.
In response to
Against Expected Utility
Downvoted. I'm sorry to be so critical, but this is the prototypical LW mischaracterization of utility functions. I'm not sure where this comes from, when the VNM theorem gets so many mentions on LW.
A utility function is, by definition, that which the corresponding rational agent maximizes the expectation of, by choosing among its possible actions. It is not "optimal as the number of bets you take approaches infinity": first, it is not 'optimal' in any reasonable sense of the word, as it is simply an encoding of the actions which a rational agent would take in hypothetical scenarios; and second, it has nothing to do with repeated actions or bets.
Humans do not have utility functions. We do not exhibit the level of counterfactual self-consistency that is required by a utility function.
The term "utility" used in discussions of utilitarianism is generally vaguely-defined and is almost never equivalent to the "utility" used in game theory and related fields. I suspect that is the source of this never-ending misconception about the nature of utility functions.
Yes, it is common, especially on LW and in discussions of utilitarianism, to use the term "utility" loosely, but don't conflate that with utility functions by creating a chimera with properties from each. If the "utility" that you want to talk about is vaguely-defined (e.g., if it depends on some account of subjective preferences, rather than on definite actions under counterfactual scenarios), then it probably lacks all of useful mathematical properties of utility functions, and its expectation is no longer meaningful.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Catnip papers:
Todd, Neil Bowman 1963. "The catnip response". Doctoral dissertation, Harvard (ocm05134795) (likewise, no joy on /r/scholar) EDIT: got it!
Maybe someone can get a scan via ILL? The library entry has an option 'Scan and deliver', which sounds promising, but requires a Harvard account. In general, Harvard seems to provide reasonable access: http://asklib.hcl.harvard.edu/faq/81789
Misc:
3. "The Placebo in medicine: Editorial", Medical Press, June 1890, pg 642 (volume unknown: vol 101?)
'Medical Press' here is the English journal Medical Press, sometimes also named London medical press and circular, which began as "Dublin Medical Press on January 9, 1839, later as the Dublin Medical Press and Circular and finally as the Medical Press and Circular".
There's no official site and almost the entire run of the journal would be public domain now, but the volumes for 1890 do not seem to have been digitized, going by HathiTrust & IA/Google Books. There are a few quotations from the editorial floating around (eg "We feel sorry for it, but apparently the law does not think well of placebos"), with a long quotation in ch1 of Follies and Fallacies in Medicine (pg3/15), but those don't turn up any copies anywhere. (/r/scholar)