Comment author: Eugine_Nier 19 December 2013 04:10:16AM 9 points [-]

Given that this quote essentially advises ignoring priors, I don't see what's so Bayesian about it.

Comment author: arborealhominid 21 December 2013 01:00:54AM 1 point [-]

Good point; I hadn't really thought about it that way! I had interpreted it as reminding you to update your probability estimates based on observed evidence.

Comment author: arborealhominid 19 December 2013 02:45:05AM *  0 points [-]

If we work around this assumption of being cis as the default… like, for example, if we stop thinking about the fact that as an abstract, general question a random human being is much more likely to be cis than trans, and instead consider the question in terms of whether, given everything we observe in ourselves, and everything we feel, and how strong our feelings are about this question of gender, which (cis or trans) is more likely for us… if we consider “is it really all that likely that I’m just a cis person who has somehow managed to convince myself that I’m trans to the point that I’m having this kind of crisis?”… if we reframe it, then the question becomes something very different, and more manageable.

Natalie Reed taking a very Bayesian approach to gender identity

Comment author: JQuinton 04 September 2013 03:47:11PM *  15 points [-]

Somebody could give me this glass of water and tell me that it’s water. But there’s a lot of clear liquids out there and I might actually have a real case that this might not be water. Now most cases when something like a liquid is in a cup it’s water.

A good way to find out if it’s water is to test if it has two hydrogens per oxygen in each molecule in the glass and you can test that. If it evaporates like water, if it tastes like water, freezes like water… the more tests we apply, the more sure we can be that it’s water.

However, if it were some kind of acid and we started to test and we found that the hydrogen count is off, the oxygen count is off, it doesn’t taste like water, it doesn’t behave like water, it doesn’t freeze like water, it just looks like water. If we start to do these tests, the more we will know the true nature of the liquid in this glass. That is how we find truth. We can test it any number of ways; the more we test it, the more we know the truth of what it is that we’re dealing with.

  • An ex-Mormon implicitly describing Bayesian updates
Comment author: arborealhominid 05 September 2013 12:08:47AM *  18 points [-]

Another good one from the same source:

Truth can be sliced and analyzed in 100 different ways and it will always remain true.

Falsehood on the other hand can only be sliced a few different ways before it becomes increasingly obvious that it is false.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 28 August 2013 07:46:52PM 9 points [-]

Hardly the most important thing in the chapter, but I was delighted to see a moratorium on house points.

Comment author: arborealhominid 29 August 2013 12:01:47AM *  27 points [-]

I wonder if this will somehow play into Quirrell's plot to have both Ravenclaw and Slytherin win the house cup.

Comment author: jacoblyles 18 August 2012 07:56:19PM 1 point [-]

We should try to pick up "moreright.com" from whoever owns it. It's domain-parked at the moment.

Comment author: arborealhominid 28 July 2013 12:40:52AM 1 point [-]

Moreright.net already exists, and it's a "Bayesian reactionary" blog- that is, a blog for far-rightists who are involved in the Less Wrong community. It's an interesting site, but it strikes me as decidedly unhelpful when it comes to looking uncultish.

Comment author: mavant 27 July 2013 06:08:53PM 4 points [-]

It's a shame you retracted this, because I wanted to +1 it.

Comment author: arborealhominid 27 July 2013 11:36:15PM *  2 points [-]

I don't actually remember why I retracted it. I tried to un-retract it afterwards, but I don't think that's possible.

Comment author: ygert 25 July 2013 08:47:09PM 5 points [-]

There is the theory that the Invisibility Cloak's power to hide one from Death does not only apply to Dementors, but to death in general. So if you put the cloak over someone who is dying, they would stay alive, at least until the Cloak is removed and death can find them again.

It's just another of those crazy crackpot theories floating around here, but I think it could fill in that gap in your theory.

Comment author: arborealhominid 26 July 2013 01:36:26AM *  0 points [-]

If you put the cloak over someone who is dying, they would stay alive, at least until the Cloak is removed and death can find them again.

I'm surprised Harry didn't try this for Hermione, then. Maybe he wouldn't have expected it to work, but it's still an easy hypothesis to test.

It was amazing how many different ways there were to kill your best friend by being stupid.

Comment author: Lambda 21 July 2013 09:02:13PM 6 points [-]

I often get this confused, but isn't it supposed to be the Pioneer probe?

Comment author: arborealhominid 22 July 2013 12:05:29AM 0 points [-]

You're right; it is.

Comment author: Vaniver 16 July 2013 09:57:45PM 10 points [-]

I would be happier with this quote if the emphasis were on "think," because impossibility proofs are possible sometimes.

Comment author: arborealhominid 17 July 2013 12:25:22AM 0 points [-]

The emphasis I used was in the original, but I agree that it would work better with the emphasis on "think."

Comment author: arborealhominid 16 July 2013 09:22:11PM *  -1 points [-]

Whatever you think can't be done, somebody will come along and do it.

Thelonious Monk

View more: Next