= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
That sort of idea. See the LW wiki for more about how the term has been used around here.
Thanks, I bookmarked that, and will be more specific.
In response to
Open thread, Feb. 01 - Feb. 07, 2016
If that is all it says, you have nothing to be offended about.
It's not your call.
Who are you?
and that women are biologically superior in any case?
This says far more about you than you could possibly imagine. I suggest being more cautious going forward.
It says that I take for fact what people say who study this type of thing.
I suggest that your conduct in this post is offensive.
In response to
What's wrong with this picture?
Nothing is wrong with this picture -- it's just Bob trolling Alice :-)
Alice should avoid at all costs being drawn onto Bob's turf. There are several ways to avoid this.
Without a link to Vos Savant's argument I don't think this comment is helpful.
She didn't provide her reasoning and I was not able to pull up this particular answer to her readers from the Web.
I guess she wants to remove the middleman costs & admin costs from your "donation." And you get direct feedback on "the fruits of your labor". There might also be psych benefits in that you can see your troubles might not be so bad in the big picture view of things.
For the class of people who think their troubles are better than anyone's (e.g., the "inverse pride" of paranoids) I guess I recommend the monetary contribution route.
Am I putting too much stock in Marilyn's high IQ and that women are biologically superior in any case?
In response to
The Charity Impact Calculator
IIRC, Ms. Vos Savant says don't give money, just go in person to the soup kitchens or whatever and put in your own labor.
Hey WhyAsk, I can see the truth value in your statement, but I'm not quite sure the exact connection to the above posts (?).
Some people hold on more strongly to their original beliefs if someone tries to convince them otherwise. This might have been in the book "On Being Certain."
I think this kind of persuasion is a lost cause but I am still sometimes drawn into trying, against my better judgement.
Even if you don't convince the non-rationalists you may learn some new mindgames, based on what they throw at you, their wacky justifications for their illogical ideas and their non-sequiturs.
On the other hand, I might just be off on a tangent. :(
In response to
"Why Try Hard" Essay targeted at non rationalists
If the person you're persuading makes a swatting motion, it means you're not getting through and your persuadee is annoyed.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Let's say I make six predictions or statements that I believe to be true about someone I've never met and I say the statements taken as a whole are true with P = 0.7. Note that I do not claim to be psychic.
The P of each statement must then lie between 0.7 and 1.0, and if they are equal then the P of each statement is 0.7 ^ (1/6) = 0.94. Let's say 0.9 because I doubt any statement about this type of probability should be reported with two significant figures, and perhaps even one significant figure without an attached tolerance band is a bit of a stretch.
I'd say that a P this high for each statement, given this example, is well nigh impossible.
Agreed?
Maybe I'm not so underqualified as to be unable to enjoy this forum.