This is illustrated well in this Seinfeld clip.

Ah I see. Thanks for clarifying. I see now that it was mentioned but yeah, I lost sight of it while reading.

I'd be interested to hear more about how governments currently deal with it. It seems kinda obvious to me that we wouldn't want to trust that there is no state-level hacking going on, and that we'd want something like what you propose in the post where you can know it's random without having to trust people. I always assumed they had some sort of fancy math-y solution, but from what you're saying it sounds like maybe they don't.

What if instead of one sources of randomness, we have each candidates provide their own?

Maybe instead of one person-with-a-hat randomizer, we could have each candidate be their own randomness source. We just need a way for candidates' randomness to be merged in a way that determines the winner.

I got a little confused here. If you have a source of randomness available to you, why move forward to something like Rock-Paper-Scissors? Why not just say "we'll generate a random number between 0 and 1. I win if it's between 0 and 0.5, you win if it's between 0.5 and 1, we re-run if it's exactly 0.5"?

Is it because both parties can't agree that the source of randomness is fair?

The paper's in a hat discussion made me think back to this from Probability is in the Mind:

I believe there was a lawsuit where someone alleged that the draft lottery was unfair, because the slips with names on them were not being mixed thoroughly enough; and the judge replied, "To whom is it unfair?"

Not that I don't think there can be legitimate problems with the degree of randomness. Just that in the absence of legitimate problems, people still might have problems with it that aren't legitimate.

I want to push back on the idea of needing a large^[1] place if you have a family.

In the US a four person family will typically live in a 2,000-2,500 square foot place, but in Europe the same family will typically live in something like 1,000-1,400 square feet. In Asia it's often less, and earlier in the US's history it also was much less than what it is today.

If smaller sizes work for others across time and space I believe it is often sufficient for people in the US today.

1. ^{^}

   Well, you just said "larger".

This resonates with me. I've always been a fan of Mr. Money Mustache's perspective that it doesn't take much money at all to live a really awesome life, which I think is similar to the perspective you're sharing.

Some thoughts:

• Housing is huge. And living with friends is a huge help. But I think for a lot of people that isn't a pragmatic option (tied to an area; friends unwilling or incompatible; need privacy), and then they get stuck paying a lot for housing.
• Going car free helps a lot. Unfortunately, I think most places in North America make this somewhat difficult, and the places that don't tend to have high housing costs.
• Traveling is expensive. Flights, hotels, Ubers, food. I find myself in lots of situations where I feel socially obligated to travel, like for weddings and stuff, and so end up traveling maybe 4-6x/year, but this isn't the hardest thing in the world to avoid. You could explain to people that you have a hard budget for two trips a year.
• Spending $200/month or whatever on food means being strategic about ingredients. Which I very much think is doable, but yeah, it requires a fair amount of agency.

Cool simulation!

I also have to add that I find the idea that a cyclist wouldn't cycle on a road absurd. I don't think I know a single person who wouldn't do this, presumably a US vs EU thing.

You mean the "No Way No How" group? If so, yeah, it feels implausible to me as well. I have a feeling that for people who were surveyed and said this, it wouldn't match their actual behavior if they were able to experience an area with genuinely calm roads.

This summer the Thinking Basketball podcast has been doing a series on the top 25 players^[1] of the 21st century. I've been following the person behind the podcast for a while, Ben Taylor, and I think he has extremely good epistemics.

Taylor makes a lot of lists like these and he always is very nervous and hesitant. It's really hard to say that Chris Paul is definitively better than James Harden. And people get mad at you when you do rank Paul higher. So Taylor really, really emphasizes ranges. For Paul and Harden specifically, he says that Paul has a range of 6-17 and Harden has a range of 13-25. So yeah, given these ranges it's very possible that Harden is in fact the better player.

Here's what his list looks like with ranges in brackets:

1. LeBron James [1-3]
2. Shaquille O'Neal [1-6]
3. Steph Curry [1-8]
4. Kevin Garnett [2-9]
5. Nikola Jokic [2-9]
6. Tim Duncan [2-10]
7. Dwyane Wade [4-11]
8. Kobe Bryant [6-15]
9. Giannis Antetokounmpo [6-15]
10. Kevin Durant [7-15]
11. Kawhi Leonard [7-16]
12. Chris Paul [6-17]
13. Steve Nash [8-19]
14. Dirk Nowitzki [7-19]
15. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander [7-20]
16. Tracy McGrady [10-24]
17. Anthony Davis [12-23]
18. Luka Doncic [12-24]
19. James Harden [13-25]
20. Joel Embiid [11-23]
21. Manu Ginobili [17-24]
22. Draymond Green [18-26]
23. Dwight Howard [17-28]
24. Jayson Tatum [20-28]
25. Russell Westbrook [20-32]

I think these ranges can be said to be confidence intervals. Taylor never explicitly used that phrase or said whether it's an 80% confidence interval or 90% confidence interval or whatever, but yeah, I think that's what these ranges are.

These confidence intervals made me think back to this idea ladder from What's Our Problem?.

The author of the book, Tim Urban, distinguishes what you think from how you think, and lays out each of these dimensions in that diagram. For the horizontal axis, we can use politics as an example where liberal is to the left and conservative is to the right. For the vertical axis of how you think, high is good (like a scientist) and low is bad (like a zealot).

Of course, these two dimensions don't tell the whole story. We're compressing things down and losing information when we plot a point on this 2D graph. But as the saying goes, all models are wrong, some are useful.

Anyway, I think it'd be cool to add a third dimension: confidence. Maybe you think James Harden is the 19th best player of the 21st century, and you arrived at that belief by taking the high rung approach of thinking like a scientist, but how confident are you in that belief? Are you 90% sure that he's like the 18th to 20th best player, or is your 90% confidence interval much wider?

Maybe we can describe this third dimension in terms of width. Someone who is "wide left" leans to the left but has a wide confidence interval. I don't love conceptualizing this with width though because there aren't enough adjectives. How do you describe medium width? Medium wide? I dunno.

When briefly describing your beliefs you need to reduce things down to few dimensions and be concise, so I think we need to be careful about "what we add". But still, I'm a huge fan of talking about how confident you are in what you believe. I think it's pretty underutilized and wish people included their confidence when describing their beliefs more frequently. And that said, my confidence in that belief is probably medium-low.

1. ^{^}

   Well, single season peaks.

Yeah I think those experiences are pretty common. I was the same until I started going to some local bike meetups. I would see these intense looking bikers on their road bikes riding amongst fast, aggressive traffic and thought that's what you need to do if you're a biker, and that I just lacked the skills. I would stick to sidewalks and off-road paths.

Well, I guess in places without good bike infrastructure there's a lot of truth to my assumptions actually. But the important thing to realize is that, although hard to find, some places do exist that are actually decent for those of us in group three.

Hm. I'm shouldn't have said that symbol doesn't fit well into the post. I actually don't understand it well enough to say that.

I would be ok calling "boo" and "yay" beliefs in the context of this post. In some sort of strict sense I'd want to say that beliefs can only have the type of number (between 0 and 100 exclusive), but in a looser sense I think it's probably fine to call things like "boo", "yay", true, false, null, etc all beliefs as well.

Edit: Perhaps these "boo" and "yay" beliefs you reference are the type of thing described in Professing and Cheering.