= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
If attraction instincts (cuteness or sexual) evolve much more slowly than physical attributes, then shouldn't supermodels be chimpier than they are?
This pretty much convinced me that the fine variances of sexiness have much more to do with memes than genes. It shouldn't be hard to test if it is the case with cuteness as well: just find a culture that hasn't been exposed to Disney/Pixar films.
Now that I think about it, there's humor that's based on repetition-- the catch phrase that gets funnier each time you hear it.
I'm pretty sure about harmlessness-- the lack of harm may only apply to the person who's laughing.
What sort of humor are you thinking of?
The harmless surprise hypothesis fits my data pretty well. But are you sure repetition-based humor isn't just conditioning people to laugh at a certain thing (catch-phrase or a situation)?
On the other hand, butt-of-a-joke hypothesis also sounds plausible.
In response to
Debate tools: an experience report
There is an option in the bCisive application, under the "spaces" tab to turn on guest access. It should supply you with an URL you can include in your post here. Without turning that option on, we would have to register, and you would have to invite each of us to view the argument map.
So: "spaces" -> "cryonics" -> "manage" -> turn on guest access
Apparently - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_(book)* - although I hadn't heard of it until now. I'm not sure it's an idea that justifies an entire book!
- anyone know how to quote this url properly using the [ ] ( ) markup?
anyone know how to quote this url properly using the [ ] ( ) markup
\ before )
All that, and how does it make money?
Possibly related: I have a bet going with a reddit-acquaintance; basically, I gave him an upvote, and if x turns out to be true, he donates $1000 to SIAI.
If members of this community have an accurate, well calibrated map, making bets could be a cost-effective way to pump money into SIAI or other non-profits/charities (which signals caring as well as integrity).
Is such a thing in the realm of Dark Arts?
In response to
comment
by
on
The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom
From personal observation, it seems that people who look agressive are more likely to be agressive. Would this be due to the balance of testosterone / oestrogen in the womb, throughout childhood and adolescence, and into adulthood? It would be interesting to find out if studies have been done to prove or disprove this theory.
I don't know of any studies specifically on aggression but this recent study found evidence that people are able to make significantly better than chance personality judgements based on a single photograph.
In response to
comment
by
on
The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom
http://www.philosophyetc.net/2005/09/raven-paradox-essay.html
Fair enough, I think. I too would generally regard observations of black ravens as being weak evidence that all ravens are black.
I too would generally regard observations of black ravens as being weak evidence that all ravens are black.
Weak evidence, but evidence nonetheless. I read the essay again, and it appears that what the author means is that there exists a case where observing a black raven is not evidence that all ravens are black; the case he specified is one where the raven is picked from a population already known to be consisting of black ravens only. In some sense, he is correct. Then again, this is not a new observation.
He does present a case where observing a red haring constitutes weak probabilistic evidence that all ravens are black.
So, my disagreement comes from my misinterpretation of the word "may".
http://www.philosophyetc.net/2008/02/examples-of-solved-philosophy.html
...has one guy's list.
One might also point to the philosophy of science (Popper, Kuhn, Hull) to see philosophers making definite progress on the problems in their field.
- Red herrings may (and black ravens may not) constitute evidence that all ravens are black.
Most of his other points rely on loose definitions, IMO ("rational", "justified", "selfish", "cat"), but this one seems plainly wrong to me, as he seems to attach the same meaning to the word "evidence" as LW does (although not that formal).
I'm not saying philosophers do not contribute to problem-solving, far from it. It may be that he is wrong and this is not "at least as well-established as most scientific results" in philosophy. It may also be that a significant amount of philosophers disregard (or have no knowledge of) Bayesian inference.
In response to
Fictional Evidence vs. Fictional Insight
A main form of insight is a hypothesis that one hadn't previously entertained, but should be assigned a non-negligible prior probability.
I think of this as P(hypothesis H is true | H is represented in my mind) > P(H is true | H is not represented in my mind), largely because someone likely did some calculations to hypothesise H (no matter how silly H may seem, e.g. "goddidit", it's better than a random generator, with few exceptions).
So, in a way, I consider the act of insight as evidence (likelihood ratio > 1) for the insight itself (the hypothesis).
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Please reply to this comment if you intend to participate, and are willing and able to free up a few hours per week or fortnight to work through the suggested reading or exercises.
Please indicate where you live, if you would be willing to have some discussion IRL. My intent is to facilitate an online discussion here on LW but face-to-face would be a nice complement, in locations where enough participants live.
(You need not check in again here if you have already done so in the previous discussion thread, but you can do so if you want to add details such as your location.)
Will participate (online only, living in Serbia). Additional back-and-forth on IRC seems like a good idea.