= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Let E stand for the observation of sabotage
Didn't you mean "the observation of no sabotage"?
In response to
Absence of Evidence Is Evidence of Absence
In response to
Solve Psy-Kosh's non-anthropic problem
The error in the reasoning is that it is not you who makes the decision, but the COD (collective of the deciders), which might be composed of different individuals in each round and might be one or nine depending on the coin toss.
In every round the COD will get told that they are deciders but they don't get any new information because this was already known beforehand.
P(T| you are told that you are a decider) = 0.9
P(T| COD is told that COD is the decider) = P(T) = 0.5
To make it easier to understand why the "yes" strategy is wrong, if you say yes every time, you will only be wrong on average once every 9 turns, the one time where the coin comes up head and you are the sole decider. This sounds like a good strategy until you realize that every time the coin comes up head another one(on average) will be the sole decider and make the wrong choice by saying yes. So the COD will end up with 0.5*1000 + 0.5*100 = 550 expected donation.
In response to
Solve Psy-Kosh's non-anthropic problem
I'm retracting this one in favor of my other answer:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/3dy/solve_psykoshs_nonanthropic_problem/d9r4
So saying "yea" gives 0.9 * 1000 + 0.1 * 100 = 910 expected donation.
This is simply wrong.
If you are a decider then the coin is 90% likely to have come up tails. Correct.
But it simply doesn't follow from this that the expected donation if you say yes is 0.9*1000 + 0.1*100 = 910.
To the contrary, the original formula is still true: 0.5*1000 + 0.5*100 = 550
So you should stil say "nay" and of course hope that everyone else is as smart as you.
In response to
Open Thread Feb 22 - Feb 28, 2016
From http://lesswrong.com/lw/js/the_bottom_line/
Your effectiveness as a rationalist is determined by whichever algorithm actually writes the bottom line of your thoughts.
I remember a similar quotation regarding actions as opposed to thoughts. Does anyone remember how it went?
In response to
Rationality Quotes Thread January 2016
From a mere act of the imagination we cannot learn anything about the real world. To suppose that the resulting probability assignments have any real physical meaning is just another form of the mind projection fallacy. In practice, this diverts our attention to irrelevancies and away from the things that really matter (such as information about the real world that is not expressible in terms of any sampling distribution, or does not fit into the urn picture, but which is nevertheless highly cogent for the inferences we want to make). Usually, the price paid for this folly is missed opportunities; had we recognized that information, more accurate and/or more reliable inferences could have been made.
-- E T Jaynes Probability Theory the Logic of Science
Shorn of context, it could be. But what is the context? I gather from the Wikipedia plot summary that Chigurh (the killer) is a hit-man hired by drug dealers to recover some stolen drug money, but instead kills his employers and everyone else that stands in the way of getting the money himself. To judge by the other quotes in IMDB, when he's about to kill someone he engages them in word-play that should not take in anyone in possession of their rational faculties for a second, in order to frame what he is about to do as the fault of his victims.
Imagine someone with a gun going out onto the street and shooting at everyone, while screaming, "If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?" Is it still a rationality quote?
I saw the movie and the context of the quote was that the killer was about to kill a guy that was chasing him. So we could say that the victim underestimated the killer. He was not randomly selected.
(To make it clear: I have never seen the movie in question, so this is not a comment on the specifics of what happened) Just because it turned out poorly doesn't make it a bad rule. It could have had a 99% chance to work out great, but the killer is only seeing the 1% where it didn't. If you're killing people, then you can't really judge their rules, since it's basically a given that you're only going to talk to them when the rules fail. Everything is going to look like a bad rule if you only count the instances where it didn't work. Without knowing how many similar encounters the victim avoided with their rule, I don't see how you can make a strong case that it's a bad (or good) rule.
I agree. But this is not how I saw the quote. For me it is just a cogent way of asking "is your application of rationality leading to success"?
Hilarious ayahuasca tourism article on RationalWiki. Convinced me not to go do it, in tandum with warnings around DMT health and safety
If you are looking for an ayahuasca analogue that is easy to make yourself consider psilohuasca. Just don't do it alone if you have no experience and be careful with the dosage.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Is the following a rationality failure? When I make a stupid mistake that caused some harm I tend to ruminate over it and blame myself a lot. Is this healthy or not? The good thing is that I analyze what I did wrong and learn something from it. The bad part is that it makes me feel terrible. Is there any analysis of this behaviour out there? Studies?