= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Probability of some Creator God: 4.2, 0, 14.6. Probability of something supernatural existing: 4.1, 0, 12.8.
It looks like some of us have yet to overcome the conjunction fallacy.
In response to
Survey Results
In nearly all situations, I suspect, lying to yourself only appears profitable because the situations has been misinterpreted. It would help to have more contextual examples where lying is plausibly profitable.
The realtor example is too ambiguous. At best, lying gives me a greater probability of capturing more of the surplus from trade, but at the risk of no sale at all (e.g. the best offer falls between my real and stated minimum). Moreover, the scenario construes sale as buyer vs. seller, but my best hope to get a high price is with competition among buyers rather than negotiating in a zero-sum game with one buyer. Here, a truthful realtor might help, because buyers would believe him when he says someone else has made a better offer.
In response to
Mechanics without wrenches
I doubt understanding differential equations would help Congressfolk make better decisions. It is the economic concepts that would be useful for them, not so much the math.
Also, our basic ideology of democracy says that ordinary people can make wise decisions about policy without expert knowledge. So it is hard for voters to say politicians are unqualified without such knowledge without admitting that voters are also unqualified.
[O]ur basic ideology of democracy says that ordinary people can make wise decisions about policy without expert knowledge.
Could this be an opportunity to "pull the rope sideways" (as you say)? Perhaps the assumption is too deeply ingrained, but it seems easier to convince someone to accept that experts might often know best than to challenge a specific policy preference.
In response to
Degrees of Radical Honesty
I am having trouble with the Nazi scenario because it seems paradoxical. Hiding is implicitly lying, so the always honest person should not be able to get into this situation in the first place. (The family could make this explicit simply by asking what you would do if the Nazis came.) Turning the family away may lead to horrible deaths as well, so this may not be an improvement. One may simply be the type of person who is too honest to hide a fugitive, no matter the benefit.
It creates competition, yes, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Personally I've found karma to be a great motivator in trying to write good comments and posts. For me, the top ten list is a considerable motivator - trying to achieve it has been part of the reason why I've been as active as I have been. I probably won't be able to reach it - there are other people who are consistently even more productive - but even then I try not to end up too far from the lowest-ranking people on it. I even think it might be good if people could bring up a list of all contributors as ranked by karma, not just the top ten.
Karma does create an incentive to write more and better comments. Still, the question is what alternative are you foregoing to write the marginal comment at LW? Should the top ten competition skew your investment of time toward LW comments and away from that alternative? Is it rational if it does?
In response to
Most Rationalists Are Elsewhere
Robin's point about karma is worth exploring. Yes, votes help to filter comments and the modest score required to post makes sense. But what is the purpose of tracking very large totals? (Eliezer's doesn't even fit inside his little green circle!) This creates a competition and plays to emotional reinforcement mechanisms. It also can be intimidating to see for passers-by or would-be LW contributors.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I took the survey. Happy aggregating!