Any discussions on phenomena related to initial gut aversion to site content by casual readers? Almost every attempt at showing site content has been met with VEHEMENT resistance, I'm curious if this has been observed and noted here.
In fact, my initial experiences with sequences and site content in general began with aversion. Personal experience shows aversion to the obviousness of discussed topics yet incompatibility with topics related to obvious points (i.e science explaining away social constructs or concepts unrelated to pursuit of knowledge through research means.)
Typical aversions from other folk fall along these lines, where most would claim that studying social constructs in such a slow, bit-and-pieces way seems altogether pointless, and not at all in pace with the requirements of said social situation.
More discussion required.
Is there a copy of Eliezer's book in russian? I'm having a hard time finding translations for this text.
Independent pharmacies don’t have the luxury of using mergers to offset the PBM power imbalance. In fact, when states proposed letting independents form their own pharmacy networks, the FTC argued against it, warning that it would “impair the ability of prescription drug plans to negotiate the best prices with pharmacies.”
When I read this it makes me question the legitimacy of the regulatory organization. It makes me couple this with the instance of 'bill mills' alleged to exist currently in both state and federal legislature.
EDIT: I say alleged because getting concrete documentation on the subject is suppressed.
Just out of curiosity, what is your stance on the impact of cars on climate change? And cars are too narrow, then what is your stance on fossil fuel consumptions and its impact on climate change?
You linked to parts of the debate I've never been exposed to, so I'm curious if there's more to know.
That is fair, so why was the claim that cars are a net positive not nearly as thoroughly scrutinized as my counterargument? I can't help but notice some favoritism here...
Was such an analysis done? Recently? Is this such common knowledge that nobody bothered to refute it?
Edit: my imagination only stretches so far as to see climate change being the only heavy counterargument to the virtue of cars. Anything else seems relatively minor, i.e deaths from motor accidents, etc.
Well, at this point I'd concede its not easy to make a claim with standards fit for such an example.
I'll see what I can do.
there is a counter-argument to it, too
What was his counter-argument? I can't read German.
Like the remarkable hurricane drought in the North America? Or are you going to actually argue that weather is climate?
Well clearly we need to establish a time range. Most sources for weather and temperature records I've seen span a couple of centuries. Is that not a range large enough to talk about climate instead of weather?
Sure, but it's a different debate.
Its a related debate, especially relevant if conclusions in the debate a metalevel lower are unenlightened.
LOL. Are you quite sure this is how humans work? :-)
They don't, that's something you train to do.
I want you to quantify the claim, not the evidence for the claim.
Why? Are you asking me to write out the interpretation of the evidence I see as a mathematical model instead of a sentence in English?
Turns out you don't know. The word means expressing your claims in numbers and, by itself, does not imply support by data.
Usually "quantifying" is tightly coupled to being precise about your claims.
I'm confused. You wouldn't have claims to make before seeing the numbers in the first place. You communicate this claim to another, they ask you why, you show them the numbers. That's the typical process of events I'm used to, how is it wrong?
A lot of the sequences contain social constructs, or at least can have social impact for readers. The entirety of the book's subsections titled 'Fake Beliefs", "Mysterious Answers" or "Politics and Rationality" falls under social construct commentary.
If it helps, I'd define social constructs as topics relating to how humans communicate, and what is considered socially acceptable knowledge by certain demographics . What passes as knowledge according to rational traditions will lead one to accept or reject what is considered socially acceptable by others, and social construct commentary would be the act of commenting on such acceptance or rejection, defining what should be accepted or rejected. Rational study MUST include social commentary simply because we're stuck with human communication as the only form of transmission of ideas between others. Why is this relevant? Because how one communicates rational concepts can be considered socially unacceptable. And also because what is considered socially accepted in certain demographic areas can directly reject rational pursuits.
Unless of course you're ready to call the "Fake Beliefs" section low quality, I'd say social commentary is unavoidable when it comes to the study of AI or rational improvement of the mind. After all having vastly different ideas of what passes as reality for yourself can have lasting impacts on social cohesion with others if their maps differ from yours (unless you were a fantastic liar).