So while many of these false beliefs are worth noting, it's worth thinking why programmers make these mistakes in practice. While it might be the case that names can include numbers, it's probably also going to be the case that the majority of numbers get into names via user error. Depending on the purpose of your database, it might be more valuable to avoid user error, than avoid a minority of users being excluded.

The reason I mention this is a lot of things in life are a study in trade offs. Quantum mechanics isn't very good at describing how big things work, and classical mechanics isn't very good at describing how small things work.

OK. So what point are you making?

The answer only what, three comments up? To quote myself, "a non-confrontational style is appropriate when nothing serious is at stake".

Could... could you evidence the claim that the non confrontational arguers in Russia all died while the confrontational arguers didn't?

Could you please quote me where I said anything remotely like that? I'm particularly curious about "all" and about "the confrontational arguers didn't".

I'm not sure you and I use empirical the same way.

"Empirical" = "Actually observed in reality"

what on earth is your point here?

That a non-confrontational style is appropriate when nothing serious is at stake.

but Jerry knows Bob is his friend and gives him warning.

The actual empirical experience of Russia is that Jerry writes a denunciation letter accusing Bob of being an imperialist lapdog, after which Bob with his family leave for a Siberian labour camp and Jerry moves into Bob's old flat.

Occasionally I wonder at how insulated and feeling-safe has the West become.

Your advice is excellent advice for the situation where the disagreement doesn't matter. An amicable disagreement between gentlemen about which wine goes best with roast partridge. At worst everyone will just order his own bottle.

That is not always the case. Sometimes when you lose a dispute -- especially a political dispute -- consequences can be very dire. People with guns might come to kill you and your family.

You seem to have made a convincing argument that most people are epistemic satisficers. I certainly am. But you don't seem to have made a compelling argument that such people are worse off than epistemic maximisers. I don't really see what benefits I would get from making an additional effort to truly identify my "terminal values". If I found myself dissatisfied with my current situation, then that would be one thing, but if I was I would try and improve it under my satisficer behaviour anyway. What you are proposing is that someone with 40 utility should put in some effort and presumably gaining some disutility from doing so, perhaps dropping myself to 35 utility to see if they might be able to achieve 60 utility.

I actually think this is a fundamentally bad approach to how humans think. If we focus on obtaining a romantic life partner, something a lot of people value, and took this approach, it wouldn't be incredibly difficult to identify flaws with my current romantic situation, and perhaps think about whether I could achieve something better. At the end of this reasoning chain, I might determine that there is indeed someone better out there and take the plunge for the true romantic bliss I want. However, I might actually come to the conclusion that while my current partner and situation is not perfect, it's probably the best I can achieve given my circumstances. But this is terrible! I can hardly wipe my memory of the last week or so of thought in which I carefully examined the flaws in my relationship and situation, and now all those flaws are going to fly into my mind, and may end up causing the end of a relationship which was actually the best I could achieve! This might sound a very artificial reasoning pattern, but it's essentially the plot line of many the male protagonist in some sitcoms and films who overthink their relationships into unhappiness. Obviously if I have such behavioural patterns anyway then I may need to respond to them, but it doesn't seem like a good idea to encourage them where they don't currently exist!

I actually have similar thoughts towards many who hold religious beliefs. While I am aware that I am far more likely to be correct about the universe than them, those beliefs do many holding them fairly small harm and actually a lot of good: they provide a ready made supportive community for them. Examination of those beliefs could well be very destructive to them, and provided they are not leading them towards destructive behaviours currently, I see no reason to encourage them otherwise.

This post is essentially my response to Pascal's mugging.

a)If an event is extremely unlikely to occur then trying to maximise expected utility is foolish unless it is repeated multiple times. In the case of the lottery, you need to buy millions of tickets to have a reasonable chance of winning once (ignoring small prizes here). In the mugging, you have to be mugged an absolutely absurd number of times before any of the muggers are even remotely likely to be telling the truth b)The hidden and secret response, which is this:

even if the lottery has positive expected utility, there are likely to be alternate uses for your money which will give better ones! If you have the money to win the lottery, you can invest elsewhere and get better returns. This is true for Pascal's mugging, where you can go spend your 10 dollars to save lives immediately via a recommendation from give well.

At least some of these "explanations" are exactly like the explanations Brown himself proffers, eg http://www.secrets-explained.com/derren-brown/card-suggestion

Of course mentalism isn't a "magic power." Derren Brown is a stage magician, not a mystical sorceror! But he does use "mentalism" skills, especially cold reading. A lot of that is traditional magic too.

Simon Singh's article is silly. Of course it's misdirection when a magician tells you how he's about to perform his trick. Of course Derren Brown implies his tricks are more real, more impressive and more noteworthy than they really are. Of course you can't really psychologically manipulate people in the way Derren Brown claims to, any more than David Copperfield really can make the statue of Liberty disappear. That's precisely why it's an entertaining show - no-one would be impressed by a magician whose "tricks" were mundane things that people really could do.

Derren Brown says he uses a mixture of "magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship". He never claims to have genuine magic powers.