Comment author: Dmytry 10 April 2012 04:23:57AM *  1 point [-]

Why would those correlations invalidate it, assuming we have controlled for origin and education, and are sampling society with low disparity? (e.g. western Europe).

Don't forget we have a direct causal mechanism at work; failure to predict; and we are not concerned with the feelings so much as with the regrettable actions themselves (and thus don't need to care if the intelligent people e.g. regret for longer, or intelligent people notice more often that they could have done better, which can easily result in more intelligent people experiencing feeling of regret more often). Not just that, but ability to predict is part of definition of intelligence.

edit: another direct causal mechanism: more intelligent people tend to have larger set of opportunities (even given same start in life), allowing them to take less risky courses of action, which can be predicted better (e.g. more intelligent people tend to be able to make more money, and consequently have a lower need to commit crime; when committing crime more intelligent people process a larger selection of paths for each goal, and can choose paths with lower risk of getting caught, including subtle unethical high pay off scenarios not classified as crime). The result is that intelligence allows to accommodate for values such as regret better. This is not something that invalidates the effect, but is rather part of effect.

Comment author: teageegeepea 10 April 2012 03:51:26PM 2 points [-]

The poor also commit significantly more non-lucrative crime.

I found your top-level post hard to understand at first. You may want to add a clearer introduction. When I saw "The issue in brief", I expected a full sentence/thesis to follow and had to recheck to see if I overlooked a verb.

Comment author: orthonormal 24 January 2012 12:15:29AM 43 points [-]

I know this was from good motives (and I agree that the new title is better), but I think that changing somebody else's post as you promote it sends off bad signaling, compared to saying "Really want to promote this, but the title looks wrong for the post. How about...?"

Comment author: teageegeepea 24 January 2012 06:24:41AM 0 points [-]

Seconded. I don't go as far as Mitchell Porter because I'm not into protests. To take another example, Barkley Rosser told me he's boycotting the comments at EconLog to protest censorship, but I just assume I'd stray too far and get banned again if I had my privileges reinstated.

Comment author: teageegeepea 23 January 2012 08:38:54PM 1 point [-]

I'm somewhat similar. I'm pretty easily satisfied and right now don't feel any discomfort pushing me toward change. LW is interesting entertainment. I continued reading it when it split from OB, but I never had interest in self-improvement or saving the world. I lack "something to protect" as Eliezer put it.

A while back somebody I had done a favor gave me a deal on a used bass guitar. I figured since it had four strings it should be easy to learn, but I didn't put that much effort into it. Almost two years later and I never even learned to get a consistent sound out of one note and I'm about to sell it (for a profit of course).

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 21 October 2011 02:39:36PM 1 point [-]

However, it would be interesting to check on the number of children and the number of grandchildren, not just sex and marriage.

Comment author: teageegeepea 22 October 2011 02:29:17PM 2 points [-]

Good point. Others have looked into that.

Comment author: teageegeepea 21 October 2011 02:29:30PM 7 points [-]

If higher IQ is almost always better, why the bell curve? Short people persist because height can have costs.

It's not hard to find evidence that IQ can be fitness reducing.

Comment author: Unnamed 29 September 2011 11:23:54PM *  6 points [-]

It looks like he is alive and well, but he has left the field and academia. Now he has a job with a state government. I probably shouldn't say more than that, to respect his anonymity. When he was blogging he dropped some clues about his identity which I followed to figure out who he was, and your comment prompted me to google him to see what he's up to now.

Comment author: teageegeepea 03 October 2011 12:00:20AM 0 points [-]

Cool. I tried to do some googling based on first name and possible university but didn't come with anything. Would have been nice of him to have a better last post than one promising content in the future.

Comment author: teageegeepea 02 October 2011 11:57:02PM *  0 points [-]

Shit, I didn't read this post until 7PM (Chicago time). Oh well, I probably wouldn't have got back in time anyway.

Comment author: teageegeepea 29 September 2011 12:12:46AM 2 points [-]

There was a cognitive scientist at Mixing Memory who had a skeptical take of some of Lakoff's views on metaphors and was doing a chapter-by-chapter analysis of one of his books, but then he disappeared off the face of the internet. Still have no idea what happened to him, shame if he died without presumably signing up for cryonics.

Comment author: Ivan_Tishchenko 12 June 2011 04:30:57AM *  1 point [-]

more recent study found that a slight majority of people would prefer to remain in the simulation.

I believe lukeprog was talking about what people think before they get wireheaded. It's very probable that once one gets hooked to that machine, one changes ones mind -- based on new experience.

It's certainly true for rats which could not stop hitting the 'pleasure' button, and died of starvation.

This is also why people have that status quo bias -- no one wants to die of starving, even with 'pleasure' button.

Comment author: teageegeepea 13 June 2011 02:10:14PM 1 point [-]

Isn't there a rule of Bayesianism that you shouldn't be able to anticipate changing your mind in a predictable manner, but rather you should just update right now?

Perhaps rather than asking will you enter or leave the simulation it might be better to start with a person inside it, remove them from it, and then ask them if they want to go back.

Comment author: Ivan_Tishchenko 12 June 2011 04:24:57AM 2 points [-]

Really? So you're ready to give up that easily?

For me, best moments in life are not those when I experience 'intense pleasure'. Life for me is like, you know, in some way, like playing chess match. Or like creating some piece of art. The physical pleasure does not count as something memorable, because it's only a small dot in the picture. The process of drawing the picture, and the process of seeing how your decisions and plans are getting "implemented" in a physical world around me -- that's what counts, that's what makes me love the life and want to live it.

And from this POV, wireheading is simply not an option.

Comment author: teageegeepea 13 June 2011 02:05:46PM 2 points [-]

I don't play chess or make art. I suppose there's creativity in programming, but I've just been doing that for work rather than recreationally. Also, I agree with Friendly-HI that an experience machine could replicate those things.

View more: Prev | Next