More generally, if one wants to learn about the distribution of opinions in a group X, one needs to make some kind of a poll, instead of listening to the self-proclaimed speakers for the group.

Otherwise the result may be more strongly influenced by "what makes people become public speakers for a group" than by merely "belonging to the group X".

Maybe we should always remind ourselves about the forces of self-selection. Looking at a Mensa member, instead of just "a highly intelligent person" we should also think "a person who prefers to publicly associate with groups defined by innate traits (as opposed to behavior or achievements)". Looking at a professional feminist, instead of "a woman", we should also think "a person who built their career on hating men". Looking at a men's rights activist, instead of "a man", we should also think "a person who got burned by a divorce". Etc.

It is also important to notice how much easier is this to do for the groups one doesn't like (where it feels like an obvious step that doesn't even require an explanation), than for the groups one does like (where it feels like an unfair generalization).

But this reminder itself is not sufficient to find out the opinions of the silent majority. (Reverting stupidity is not intelligence.) Recognizing that we have noisy data doesn't automatically un-noise them. Unfortunately, even the public online poll would suffer from "people who prefer to express their opinions in online polls" selection bias.

Hi,

I can definitely see where you're coming from. No doubt I've got a lot to go through/learn before continuing on. I think that's been the main theme from most responses here-- I'm not properly modeling normal people well enough to create material that's very persuasive.

Instead, it seems that I'm assuming some frames of mind that are not typical.

Also, I can see my writing style doesn't work for people, though I'm not sure how indicative of an average response the feedback here is (perhaps less so?).

So obviously I'm lacking at least two things to make an effective case here. It's always helpful to get feedback like this, as telling me it's good when it isn't won't help me improve.

I believe I can say that I've very likely underestimated the amount of effort needed to get typical people into a new mindframe. Hopefully I can improve the way I write about these things to argue more persuasively.

He has now created a new username, The Lion 2, to repost his old posts and threaten the moderators.

Edited to add: As of now, he has gathered 65 karma points (87% positive) in less than a full day.

The latest SSC links post links to this post on getting government grants, which sort of set off my possibly-too-good-to-be-true filter, despite the author's apparent sarcasm in the example he gave about bringing in police officers to talk with schoolchildren. Can anyone more knowledgeable comment on this article? Is it realistic for EAs to go out and expect to find government grants that they could get a reasonable amount of utility out of?

How much do you trust economic data released by the Chinese government? I had assumed that economic indicators were manipulated, but recent discussion suggests it is just entirely fabricated, at least as bad as anything the Soviet Union reported. For example, China has reported a ~4.1% unemployment rate for over a decade. Massive global recession? 4.1% unemployment. Huge economic boom? 4.1% unemployment.

One of the largest, most important economies in the world, and I don't know that we can reliably say much about it at all.

I am confused about free will. I tried to read about it (notably from the sequences) but am still not convinced.

I make choices, all the time, sure, but why do I chose one solution in particular?

My answer would be the sum of my knoledge and past experiences (nurture) and my genome (nature), with quantum randomness playing a role as well, but I can't see where does free will intervene.

It feels like there is something basic I don't understand, but I can't grasp it.

"Wisdom is not the same thing as information. Wisdom is information + experience + context, and only a human can do that. Wisdom is information you can actually use."

-Tucker Max, The Book in a Box Method

John Green on human inability to instinctively appreciate large numbers and broad events:

My current number one goal in life is to someday be as excited about something as Cheez Doodles Guy is about Cheez Doodles. But its a weird facet of human brains that some thins cause that joyful excitement and others don't. Like today, the World Health Organisation announced that maternal death over the last twenty-five years has fallen 44% worldwide. This is amazing news (arguably even better news than discovering Cheez Doodles in Antarctica) and yet while I am encouraged by this news I am not Cheez-Doodles-Guy-excited about it, which is so weird; humans are so weird!

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is."

Often attributed to Yogi Berra, but research done at Snopes casts doubt on this.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/berra/practicetheory.asp

I thought of this quote when I read E. Yudkowsky's essay on The Map and the Territory.

xkcd