I started this as a comment on "Being half wrong about pascal's wager is even worse" but its really long, so I'm posting it in discussion instead. Also I illustrate here using negative examples (hell and equivalents) for the sake of followability and am a little worried about inciting some...
So someone told me that Eliezer Yudkowsky predicted no 5 sigma evidence of the higgs boson, and that 6 sigma evidence had been found. A quick search found the post referred to, and a slightly longer but not particularly thorough search did not find anything discussing it. So: http://lesswrong.com/lw/1dt/open_thread_november_2009/17xb (02...
saw this on reddit. Thought people here would be interested. http://medicaldaily.com/news/20120411/9496/alcohol-solving-skills-analytical-thinking-creativity-study.htm edit: from a comment in the reddit thread http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/s50la/drinking_alcohol_may_significantly_enhance/ "The article is here for those who are interested. Going through the article, the measure they chose was the Remote Associates Test. In this test you are given 3 words...
edit: the tone of this post is angry, so you know. The anger is directed primarily at the paragraph I quote, which I consider utterly outrageous. It definitely spills over onto you also but I have nothing against you other than what spills over from this paragraph. I found your post had interesting insights in it otherwise. Anyway this post is pretty much an outraged rant so be warned.
Actually, here are the cliff notes because there were some objective things I identified.
teaching is a public performance role. dealing with customers complaints is literally part of the job, and one can additionally take it on more in the mantle of one's role as... (read 1269 more words →)
Why not? Purely In terms of the social game, isn't "being smart and analytical" just one style of play?
Disadvantages: less natural concern for offense or feelings
Advantages: more concern and ability for logical politeness, finding the truth, and focusing on ideas (not taking offense).
That's^ if you want to really enter the game and play it the standard way.
You can also just be yourself, which gets you points and naturally crafts a reputation/expectations, and be idea-focused, which naturally does the same.
from an above comment, which has also been my experience:
"In some ways, my obliviousness was very powerful for me, because ignoring status cues is a mark of status, as are confidence and being at... (read 1054 more words →)
PvP is fun even if you aren't good at it, otherwise it is literally just a status game. This is a lot of obfuscating dressing on the idea that human status games is where it's really at. Never mind how they're negative sum, promote perverse incentives, how people coordinate and warp perception to be unfair to people as much as the target's low status will allow, and otherwise 90% shitty in the particular, -pvp is fun, and not really like social status games, so apparently we all have to be bitches in the future.
How is it not obvious that rape is something on which people are INSUFFICIENTLY CLEAR about its badness. I mean you've personally written about not adopting evolution's alien values, do you think humans are going to get that wrong when the time comes, or do you not see how "legalised rape" is just hopping on board the hooray for monkey brains and negative sum subgoal stomp train? Then having the superhappies, seemingly in most other respects humanities superiors, contrasted to abhorrent aliens, also converging on drastically increased sexuality as a natural convergence point for drastic intervention in people's natures.
If the story didn't seem otherwise so idealistic, it might just slip in as... (read 662 more words →)
i'm only going to consider the first one. The obvious thing to do is to pick the bees and hope for the bees, and it's an incredibly clear illustration of a situation where you might interpet the necessary unpleasant consequences of a good decision, as negative feedback about that decision, in the form of regretting the possibility of hornets. It pinpoints that feeling and it should help to push it away any other time you might be in abject pain or experiencing other lesser discomfort, e.g. after you, say, go to the gym for the first time. it really pinpoints that false temptation.
There is an argument for box 1 though: with a... (read more)
The downvotes and no reply are a pretty good example of what's wrong with less wrong. Someone who is genuinely confused should not be shooed away then insulted when they ask again.
First of all remember to do and be what's best. If this doubt is engendering good attitudes in you, why not keep it? The rest of this is premised on it not helping or being unhelpful.
External reality is much more likely than being part of a simulation which adjusts itself to your beliefs because a simulation which adjusts itself to your beliefs is way, way more complicated. It requires more assumptions than a single level reality. If there's a programmer of... (read more)
I think the "...and that's terrible" is pretty clearly implied. What exactly is wrong with the quote? It looks like you're dissecting a straightforward appeal to people's (stated or real) anti-unfairness values, as if it's a given that it's dishonest. I don't get it.
"some people perceive downvotes as rewards"
Is this just a dig at people vehemently defending downvoted posts or are you serious in calling this a hypothesis?
Rolling 10 dice instead of one makes the game less random. Rolling dice often instead of rarely makes the game more random. This game rolls dice for every attack and not that many. The dude said people complained about lots of dice rolling, not rolling lots of dice. Yeah, obviously if you roll 10 dice its less random than rolling one but what are the chances card game enthusiasts: people "geeky" enough to play star wars TCG don't understand that basic part of probability? It's far more likely that people were annoyed at lots of dice rolling, not the amount of dice you roll each time. Which matches the reported complaints of the players. Not that I'd expect an accurate report of the players positions when making excuses for why rolling dice in a card game is a bad idea.
I started this as a comment on "Being half wrong about pascal's wager is even worse" but its really long, so I'm posting it in discussion instead.
Also I illustrate here using negative examples (hell and equivalents) for the sake of followability and am a little worried about inciting some paranoia so am reminding you here that every negative example has an equal and opposite positive partner. For example pascal's wager has the opposite where accepting sends you to hell, it also has the opposite where refusing sends you to heaven. I haven't mentioned any positive equivalents or opposites below. Also all of these possibilities are literally effectively 0 so don't be worrying.
"For so long... (read 1610 more words →)
So someone told me that Eliezer Yudkowsky predicted no 5 sigma evidence of the higgs boson, and that 6 sigma evidence had been found. A quick search found the post referred to, and a slightly longer but not particularly thorough search did not find anything discussing it.
So:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1dt/open_thread_november_2009/17xb (02 November 2009)
I'll go ahead and predict here that the Higgs boson will not be showing up. As best I can put the reason into words: I don't think the modern field of physics has its act sufficiently together to predict that a hitherto undetected quantum field is responsible for mass. They are welcome to prove me wrong.
(I'll also predict that the LHC will never actually run, but that prediction is (almost entirely) a joke, whereas the first prediction is not.)
Anyone challenging me to bet on the above is welcome to offer odds.
In the post below rolfandreassen sets the condition of 5 sigma evidence before 2014 and offers a bet of $25. In the post below that Eliezer accepts.
Discuss.
saw this on reddit. Thought people here would be interested.
edit: from a comment in the reddit thread
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/s50la/drinking_alcohol_may_significantly_enhance/
"The article is here for those who are interested. Going through the article, the measure they chose was the Remote Associates Test. In this test you are given 3 words like ARM, TAR, and PEACH and supposed to guess the associated word. (PIT in this case) (more here if you want to give it a shot). The three words flash on the screen and you are given 1 minute. When you 'know' the answer you press a key and write in your answer. The time to press the key and whether the answer was right are recorded. Afterward you are told to say how you came to the answer on a scale of 1-7 (1 being strategy 7 being a flash of insight). Drunk (.7 .07 (thanks Erobre) BAC) people answered slightly faster and came to 20% more solutions. (they also said their answers were based more on insight than strategy)"
The "here" links to http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810012000037
if nothing else, it's also a matter of what things an imperfect liar must believe in in order to not give off accurate hints that they're a bad person to have around, or more directly provoke retribution.
So perceiving the kind of things which would mark you as someone to be shunned or killed, as having their own special ontological category is very practical.
Even the idea that such things damn you is fairly accurate if you extract the baggage. You murder one lousy person and your option to live a normal life is greatly cut off and your options mostly narrow to... (read more)