Comment author: MTGandP 26 March 2016 04:42:51PM 6 points [-]

Is it possible to self-consistently believe you're poorly calibrated? If you believe you're overconfident then you would start making less confident predictions right?

Comment author: indexador2 26 March 2016 11:01:56PM 8 points [-]

Being poorly calibrated can also mean you're inconsistent between being overconfident and underconfident.

Comment author: ChristianKl 07 March 2016 10:44:10PM 3 points [-]

An investigator who hoped to learn something about what scientists took the atomic theory to be asked a distinguished physicist and an eminent chemist whether a single atom of helium was or was not a molecule. Both answered without hesitation, but their answers were not the same. For the chemist the atom of helium was a molecule because it behaved like one with respect to the kinetic theory of gases. For the physicist, on the other hand, the helium atom was not a molecule because it displayed no molecular spectrum.

Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Comment author: indexador2 08 March 2016 12:41:43AM 1 point [-]

A high school student would say no, because by definition a molecule has more than one atom.

Comment author: Lumifer 22 February 2016 08:42:37PM 11 points [-]

LW might find that interesting:

I'm becoming a Christian, not just one who occasionally went to church as a kid, but a real one that believes in Christ, loving God with all my heart, etc.

Most ex-atheists who become deists turn to Buddhism, so I thought I'd be clear why they are all wrong (Robert Wright!). I'd like to thank Mencius Moldbug, Dierdre McCloskey, Mike Behe, Tim Keller (four names probably never listed in sequence ever), and hundreds more...Below are snippets (top and bottom) from my Christian apology: I came to Christ via rational inference, not a personal crisis.

Comment author: indexador2 22 February 2016 08:55:07PM *  14 points [-]

If evolution is untrue, it changes everything.

Just by reading this phrase, I can conclude that everything else is probably useless.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 03 January 2016 05:52:10PM *  5 points [-]

In the LW Slack an online test by the Birkbeck University of London for prosopagnosia (face blindness) was posted and some took it. The Test says that 80% is population average and below 60% means possible face-blindness (and I guess 33% means random answers). The results posted in the LW slack show an average below 70% (for 10 values) and the hypothesis was offered that the LW populace in not neuro-typical in this regard. How about verifying this?

Take test test here.

My test result (give percentage points as reported by the test in range 0..100; use 80 if you absolutely don't want to do the test):

ADDED: This test takes about 20min according to its intro and some say that it takes longer (see below).

Submitting...

Comment author: indexador2 04 January 2016 07:59:40PM 2 points [-]

If you also want a datapoint on the time necessary to complete the test, I took 15 minutes. Most of the time when I didn't know the correct answer I simply guessed.

Comment author: James_Miller 23 November 2015 02:35:22AM 8 points [-]

Nearly the same could have been written after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor if you replace Muslims with Asians. My view is that political correctness stops westerners from considering certain weaknesses, and the big danger is that ISIS realizes and seeks to exploit this willful blindness.

Comment author: indexador2 25 November 2015 01:20:07AM 1 point [-]

I don't think the comparison is valid, if anything it's the opposite; the Pearl Harbor attack was intended as a devastating blow, to crush the American naval capability on the Pacific. The United States then did the opposite of what the Japanese intended, rebuilt the fleet and committed fully to the war.