= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Has the ultimatum game been repeated with westerners with the western equivalent of "several days wages" between people who know each other well rather than randoms?
It's been repeated somewhat. Joseph Henrich explains his methodology in his paper here. He used UCLA grad students because of their similar community closeness, offering $160 (2.3 days of wages) vs 20 soles, which is supposedly the Machiguenga equivalent. It was compared to tests done by another group in other non-western locations (Tokyo and Java), which show similar results to those of the UCLA students.
I dunno, I'm not good a modeling children who can read Egan. Peer's storyline in particular was horrifying, especially his eternal suicide at the end of Part 1.
As a teenager, I don't see how it can be horror. I thought it was inspiring, honestly.
In response to
You can't signal to rubes
On this site, rube generally means 'red cube', and I had to look up the word to figure out what you meant here. Though this still makes a bit of sense--you can't signal to red cubes either.
In response to
Notes on Psychopathy
Huh, I always assumed I was a psychopath, but now that seems like giving myself way too much credit for being mildly odd. Is there any test online to check?
Harry is missing a point, tough. Flamel is 600 years old, and started out powerful. Presumably, "trying to blackmail / kidnap Flamel" has been the endpoint of the careers of enough dark lords that they do not attempt this anymore.
,,, Wait. alchemical diagrams need to be drawn "to the fineness of a child's hair"? ... ... Eh,, I think it entirely possible that Flamel is the only wizard to ever manage to make a stone because he is the only wizard to ever try it while young enough to use his own hair. In which case, Hermione is going to show up with a working stone shortly.
In response to
comment
by
on
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 18, chapter 87
Do strands of hair really become thicker over time? I doubt this.
That's a slightly different problem. How would it be a resolution to the original problem?
Yeah, It wouldn't be a way to win, since in the original problem you could throw a coin and base your decision on that. Average gain of $500,500 isn't so bad, but not nearly as good as $1,000,000 from one-boxing. You're right, it's not a resolution to the paradox, but if the situation is changed it's a possible way of winning.
I guess I'm looking for ways to beat Omega, and I'm trying to figure out if this would be one of them. Something like "harnessing the power of random"?
In response to
Open Thread, December 16-31, 2012
About Newcomb's problem + something non-deterministic:
If the contents of box B are increased so that B > A, it seems like by basing the choice of one-boxing or two-boxing off of a quantum coin toss, one could limit Omega's predicting powers from 100% accuracy to a mere coin toss with 50% accuracy.
Where A has $1000 and B has $2000, the average payoff would be $1500 the coin toss ($0 or $3000) versus $1000 by one-boxing and $0 by two-boxing in a way Omega can predict.
Has something like this been considered as a possible resolution?
In response to
Group rationality diary, 8/20/12
100 pages left of GEB-- the last few days I've read 300 pages, the only problem is not comprehending half of it.
Also, I started writing daily for 750words.com after hearing about it from OnTheOtherHandle in this. I've kept it up for 20 days so far and will try to keep doing it-- My writing won't improve by doing 3 pages of stream-of-consciousness, but if I have emails/essays to write I draft them there. Since I procrastinate the most on writing tasks, this encourages starting right away. When school starts I might stop using it, but I hope I find time.
My honest response to "do you have black (indian/chinese/..) friends?" is something like "no idea, I don't usually notice hair, eye or skin color".
EDIT: wondering about the downvotes... does it sound non-believable or something?
This happens to me as well-- I was shocked recently when someone pointed out some people I interact with daily are on the black side of the spectrum. It just doesn't occur to me.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I'm at 62% (+81 total.) I imagine the people with the highest % scores stick to mostly saying stuff that is obviously useful or interesting, though if they get recognisability they might be able to get away with more. It'll be interesting to go back and see what gets what % in my past comments.
edit: Is there an easy way to find my older posts? I can only go back a few pages if I click my name on the right.
To find your older posts use Wei Dai's tool.