All of Eugine_Nier's Comments + Replies

Agreed, it's also Eliezer's super-villain fetish thing.

A possibility that the paper does not raise is that instead of calculating the actual wealth held by the actual top 1%, you could estimate the Gini coefficient from the whole population, and calculate a theoretical 1% wealth.

Taleb would probably object on the grounds that the above will lead misleading results if the population is actually composed of a supper position of several distinct populations with different Gini coefficients.

0Richard_Kennaway
His paper does go into these and other elaborations of the basic point.

Since you started this sub-thread and are clearly still following it, are you going to retract your claims that CRU predicted "no more snow in Britain" or that Hansen predicted Manhattan would be underwater by now?

I was going from memory, now that I've tracked down the actual links I'd modify the claims what was actually said, i.e., snowfalls becoming exceedingly rare and the West Side Highway being underwater.

2drnickbone
Thanks.... Upvoted for honest admission of error.

I can only comment on the graphs which they themselves chose to plot in 2009. Snowfall was not one of those graphs (whereas it was in 2006).

Interesting. I wonder why they're no longer plotting some trends. Maybe because it's too hard to fit them into their preferred narrative.

1drnickbone
Or moving from conspiracy land, big budget cuts to climate research starting in 2009 might have something to do with it. P.S. Since you started this sub-thread and are clearly still following it, are you going to retract your claims that CRU predicted "no more snow in Britain" or that Hansen predicted Manhattan would be underwater by now? Or are you just going to re-introduce those snippets in a future conversation, and hope no-one checks?

Nobody thinks the Bailiwick of Guernsey is a country, and yet .gg exists.

Well, it's sufficiently independent of the UK to function as a tax haven. It's definitely one of those entities that's on the fuzzy boundary between country and non-country, along with Hong Kong and (in a slightly different way) Dubai.

I can't recall anyone calling Hong Kong a country.

Well ICANN for starters.

2asr
Having a top-level domain doesn't make an entity a country. Lots of indisputably non-countries have top-level domains. Nobody thinks the Bailiwick of Guernsey is a country, and yet .gg exists.

Liberals would tell a story where things are reversed and class is causal of the pathology- they would say the economic changes that have occurred for the last few decades have increased 'economic uncertainty' for the lower class (for some measure of uncertainty.) which has lead to marital stress and divorce.

There were many historical periods with much much greater economic uncertainty, they also had higher marriage rates.

Here is the article I linked to above. Note that it implies a different conclusion about recent temperature trends. Do you have any evidence for preferring your letter to the editor over the article Eric discusses besides it confirming your pre-existing belief?

The rest of said article reads like an attempt to (preemptively?) explain away failed predictions.

It doesn't read that way to me.

Have you even read the article you linked to? Here are the first four sentences:

Early climate forecasts are often claimed to have overestimated recent warming.

... (read more)
0[anonymous]
ETA: Double post. Retracting. I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Both papers are based on the exact same data (the HadCRUT4 data set). There is no conflict between the articles that I can see. Curry's paper is about discrepancies between the data and the CMIP5 model simulations. The paper I linked is about the success of the HadCM2 model. It also says some stuff about the CMIP5 model, but as far as I can tell it doesn't say anything that is inconsistent with what Curry says. Is there some inconsistency you had in mind? So I don't "prefer" one article to the other. It seems to me that both articles are making perfectly valid points. Are you sure you're not falling for "arguments are soldiers" thinking? Just because I posted evidence that climate predictions don't "inevitably" fail doesn't mean I think that all climate model predictions are accurate at a 2% confidence level. Again, not sure what you're talking about. Why do those four sentences read like an attempt to explain away false predictions? The whole point that the authors are making is now that we do have independent observations taken over one and a half decades, we can evaluate the success or failure of models constructed in the mid-90s.
5pragmatist
Not sure what you mean by "different conclusion". Both papers are based on the exact same data (the HadCRUT4 data set). There is no conflict between the articles that I can see. Curry's paper is about discrepancies between the data and the CMIP5 model simulations. The paper I linked is about the success of the HadCM2 model. It also says some stuff about the CMIP5 model, but as far as I can tell it doesn't say anything that is inconsistent with what Curry says. So I don't "prefer" one article to the other. It seems to me that both articles are making perfectly valid points. Are you sure you're not falling for "arguments are soldiers" thinking? Just because I posted evidence that climate predictions don't "inevitably" fail doesn't mean I think that all climate model predictions are accurate at a 2% confidence level. Again, not sure what you're talking about. Why do those four sentences read like an attempt to explain away false predictions? The whole point that the authors are making is now that we do have independent observations taken over one and a half decades, we can evaluate the success or failure of models constructed in the mid-90s.
3A1987dM
[citation needed] (preferably a peer-reviewed paper or a university-level textbook rather than an article in the popular press -- everybody know people say all kinds of things in the latter).

The only example of a successful prediction in your article is a rise in "mean surface temperature" which as I mentioned in the grand-parent is not hard to fudge

Your evidence that the weights used to calculate mean surface temperature are fudged in favor of global warming is a link to the "VERY ARTIFICIAL correction" in the CRU code. But that correction was not applied to global mean surface temperature data. It was applied to historical tree-ring data in order to account for the discrepancy between recent temperatures calculated usi... (read more)

But I can't be sure to what extent we really have differing models of how the world works, as opposed to at least one of us going out of our way to signal something (willingness to disregard official politics in your case, familiarity with the Middle East in mine).

If your goal was to signal your familiarity with the Middle East, you've utterly failed since it appears you didn't know how the UAE was organized. You come across as one of those people who memorizes lists of countries and capitals and possibly shapes but has no idea how the map does (or does not) correspond to facts on the ground.

More seriously, are you implying that any increase in the variance is irrelevant so long as the mean doesn't change much?

I never said anything about an increase in variance, temperature records haven't been around long enough for it to be hard to find record setting temperatures somewhere. Also, I notice you're shifting your hypothesis from "temperatures are rising" to "variance is rising".

As for the argument in the linked comic, when wine grapes can be grown in England and Newfoundland, as was the case during the medieval warm peri... (read more)

Regarding the wine point, it is doubtful if wine grapes ever grew in Newfoundland, as the Norse term "Vinland" may well refer to a larger area. From the Wikipedia article:

the southernmost limit of the Norse exploration remains a subject of intense speculation. Samuel Eliot Morison (1971) suggested the southern part of Newfoundland; Erik Wahlgren (1986) Miramichi Bay in New Brunswick; and Icelandic climate specialist Pall Bergthorsson (1997) proposed New York City.[26] The insistence in all the main historical sources that grapes were found in V

... (read more)
4drnickbone
Reading your referenced article (Independent 2000): Clearly the Climatic Research Unit was not predicting no more snow in Britain by 2014. Regarding the alleged "West Side Highway underwater" prediction, see Skeptical Science. It appears Hansen's original prediction timeframe was 40 years not 20 years, and conditional on a doubling of CO2 by then.
1A1987dM
I notice you're shifting your hypothesis from ‘it's not getting any warmer than in the 1990s’ to ‘it's still not as warm as it was in the 1000s’. ;-)

But I have a hard time seeing how α can really be that small for income & wealth, because that'd imply mean income & mean wealth aren't well-defined in the population,

Um no. They're not well defined over the distribution, they will certainly be well defined over a finite population.

which must be false because no one actually has, or is earning, infinitely many dollars or euros.

You seem to be confused about how distributions with infinite means work. Here's a good exercise: get some coins and flip them to obtain data in a St. Petersburg di... (read more)

0satt
I'm lost. A statistical distribution characterizes a population (whether the population is an abstract construction or a literal concrete population); if the mean isn't well-defined for the population it oughtn't be well-defined for the distribution allegedly characterizing the population. Taking annual income for concreteness, the support of a power law distribution would include, for example, $69 quadrillion. But no one actually earns so much (global economic activity, denominated in dollars, is simply too small), so the support of the actual annual income distribution must exclude $69 quadrillion. Consequently the actual annual income distribution and the power law distribution cannot actually be the same distribution; they have different support. In the case of the St. Petersburg distribution one defines an abstract data-generating process which, by construction, implies a particular distribution with infinite mean. In the case of people's incomes or wealth, by contrast, we know that the output of the data-generating process is constrained from above by the size of the economy, so the resulting population (and the distribution representing that population) must have finite mean income and finite mean wealth. (It's as if we were talking about an imperfect real-life instantiation of the St. Petersburg process where we knew the casino had a limited amount of money.)

Also, on the occasions when global warming believers make independently verifiable predictions with definite dates they inevitably fail to occur as shown by the fact that Britain still has snow and Manhattan isn't under water.

Yes, some global warming believers have made predictions that have been falsified, but "inevitably fail to occur" is wrong. Here's a counterexample.

Julia Hargreaves does a lot of work evaluating predictive climate models, and her conclusion is that there are reliable models for predicting broad global climate response to... (read more)

4A1987dM
http://xkcd.com/1321/ (SCNR). More seriously, are you implying that any increase in the variance is irrelevant so long as the mean doesn't change much? Who predicted that Britain would no longer have snow or Manhattan would be under water by 2014?

I think that in the current social, political, informational, military, etc. global environment the old-style colonialism is highly unlikely to work.

Can you be specific about what you think is the relevant change?

The problem is that the weather also has many variables. While the chaos implies control principal works for low dimensional chaotic systems, e.g., the three body problem in orbital dynamics, I'm not sure how well it would work for weather.

4brazil84
My main issue with it is that the people on the warmist side of the debate completely failed to predict it. Which is pretty good evidence that their thinking and their computer models are wrong. And yet, as far as they know, they continue to insist that their thinking and computer models are fundamentally sound. It seems to me like a class case of groupthink, self-serving bias, etc.
-2Ander
Then why do I see reddit links to NOAA articles, every single month, with titles like: "May 2014 the hottest May since 1880. Four of the five warmest Mays on record have occurred in the past five years. May 2014 marked the 39th consecutive May and 351st consecutive month (more than 29 years) with a global temperature above the 20th century average."
8bramflakes
Nothing, because you can make any trend in a noisy dataset vanish by looking at a carefully-chosen small slice. El Niño peaked in 1998, the subsequent temperatures look flatter in comparison. Yawn. Zoom out, the trend is clear.

The nastiness Viliam talks about is mostly in the form of trolling or making insulting statements with little semantic content. Lying of the type Arthur advocates goes beyond that since it injects false statements into the discussion and tends to result in one's side filling up with people who believe said lies and thus willing to lie further.

2Suryc11
Ah, okay. That makes sense, thanks.

Europe is more equal on empirical measures such as the Gini Coefficient.

Here is Taleb's paper about the problems with measures like the Gini Coefficient.

6satt
If I understand Taleb correctly, his objection is that if X's distribution's upper tail tends to a power law with small enough (negated) exponent α, then sample proportions of X going to the distribution's top end are inconsistent under aggregation, and suffer a bias that decreases with sample size. And since the Gini coefficient is such a measure, it has these problems. However, Taleb & Douady give me the impression that the quantitative effect of these problems is substantial only when α is appreciably less than 2. (The sole graphical example for which T&D mention a specific α, their figure 1, uses α = 1.1). But I have a hard time seeing how α can really be that small for income & wealth, because that'd imply mean income & mean wealth aren't well-defined in the population, which must be false because no one actually has, or is earning, infinitely many dollars or euros. [Edit after E_N's response: changed "a bias that rises with sample size" to "a bias that decreases with sample size", I got that the wrong way round.]

The disagreement wasn't just about tone. It was about Arthur Chu's willingness to lie for his cause. The only reason it appeared to be mostly about tone is that Yvain didn't make the strongest argument he could have.

2Suryc11
Hm, I'm confused. I agree that at least part of the disagreement was over Arthur's willingness to lie for his cause, but how is that not captured by Viliam_Bur's post? Lying for a cause or otherwise playing "dirty" to win for your cause, as Arthur seemed to be advocating, seems to straightforwardly line up with Viliam_Bur's theory about "Nice Greens", "Nasty Greens", "Nice Blues" and "Nasty Blues"; specifically, in this theory, Arthur would be a "Nasty" player on the side of progress/civilization/neoliberalism-ish/etc. and Yvain would be a "Nice" player on the same side. I guess I'm not sure what you mean by tone?

Once social scientists get past their taboo against genetic explanations.

9James_Miller
Better genetic analysis will make it easier to discuss politically incorrect topics because rather than talking about IQ you could discuss complex gene clusters characterized by hard to understand mathematical correlations. And I strongly suspect that with a better understanding of genetics race would become much less significant in statistical analysis because after you account for genetics you would gain little statistical significance by directly adding race into a regression (i.e. if gene X does something important and 80% of Asians but only 5% of whites have the gene then without genetic analysis race is important but after you know who has the gene race isn't statistically significant.)

Europe is also more equal than the US.

That is precisely the claim being disputed. In particular, as Taleb points out in the document I quoted in the great-grandparent, when you stop trying to use static measures of inequality and instead base it on the amount of turnover at the top, you see that Europe is much more unequal (almost an oligarchy) than the US.

4TheAncientGeek
Europe is more equal on empirical measures such as the Gini Coefficient. The comment in Talebs aphorisms does not refute that, because it is not evidence based. Instead, Taleb is making some sort of circular, ideology driven argument...that Europe is "socialist" and under "socialism" the state runs everything., therefore no healthy competition, therefore stasis..but no. in Socially Democratic Europe, the government does not intervene in the boardroom. What's more, the empirical evidence actually contradicts Talebs untested expectation: "according to the latest Global 500 CEO Departures™ study by global public relations firm Weber Shandwick, departing European chief executives were also more likely to be forced out of office than North American and Asia Pacific CEOs during this 2007 time period." http://www.reputationrx.com/Default.aspx/CEOTURNOVER/GLOBAL500CEODEPARTURES%E2%84%A2andCEODEPARTURESSTUDY%E2%84%A2

Elections are no big deal. Mugabe holds elections, Putin holds elections, hey, even Assad recently held elections.

Well, the US forces actually attempted not to rig them.

However the military strength was the underlying bedrock.

Disagree. Military strength was based on a bedrock of competent management.

Are you saying that the laws of nature somehow changed over the past century?

Which particular laws of nature do you have in mind?

Whichever laws you invoked when you said implied that "old-style colonialism won't work in our time" is a reasonable hypothesis.

2Lumifer
No need to, the locals can do everything necessary. The US forces just provided the money and prevented the "undesirables" from playing. I did not invoke any laws of nature. I think that in the current social, political, informational, military, etc. global environment the old-style colonialism is highly unlikely to work. No laws of nature are involved in this assertion.

The problem with a time limit is that it encourages you to not care what happens afterwards.

0Manfred
Hm, I think any integrable time-discounting function would also work. And the trouble with an AI that doesn't time-discount is that it gets Pascal's mugged by literally any chance of eternity.

The point is that Europe is more socialist than the US.

-1TheAncientGeek
Europe is also more equal than the US. The counterargument put forward to that is that the Iron Curtain countries were not particularly egalitarian. My countercounterargument is that social democracy is not commensurable with single party state socialism.

I submit to you that if Alice thinks Dubai is a country because she's never heard of the UAE, and Bob thinks that Dubai is the UAE's version of Istanbul, Bob's model of the political geography of the Arabian peninsula is still better than Alice's, even if Carol, who thinks that Dubai is so different from the rest of the UAE that it "might as well" be a country in its own right, has a better model than Bob.

The difference is that the various Emirates of the UAE (including Dubai) have far more internal autonomy then even US states to say nothing of Istanbul.

4komponisto
That is not a response to the paragraph quoted. (It is arguably a response to the paragraph following the one quoted.)

To phrase your result in terms a physicist would use: an all-time integral of a scalar function (happiness) is not Lorentz-invariant.

Yes it is, since Lorentz-transformations have determinant 1, i,e., are measure-preserving. The issue in the example is that happiness isn't a function on all of space-time, it is a function on the world lines of being capable of experiencing it.

0A1987dM
You can integrate happiness over the proper time along those world lines; I suspect that's equivalent to integrating a happiness density that looks like SUM_i h_i(t) delta(x - x_i(t)) over spacetime.
0TheMajor
Ah. It's about time the assumptions were made clear. I thought that 'creation of happiness' was a function defined on spacetime, and the proposed definition defines the total happiness to be only the happiness created on the observers world line. I believe this is not Lorentz-invariant - while a scalar H(x,t) might be invariant under such a transformation we are interested in H(x,t)dt, which messes up the invariance. And I think your remark about the determinant is just a rewording of my point: the determinant of a matrix describes the change in volume of a (in this case) 4-dimensional volume, but if we integrate only in one direction our result can still change (almost) arbitrarily. And therefore introducing an all-space integral solves the problem - this quantity does deal with all four dimensions.

On the other hand, if you restrict yourself, say to situations that only last finitely long all these paradoxes go away.

If you restrict to finitely long situations, you wind up with weird effects at the cutoff window.

0dankane
This isn't a problem if you believe that there will only ever be finitely many people. Or if you exponentially discount (in some relativistically consistent manner) at an appropriate rate.
0Manfred
Caring about times within some time limit in a single reference frame is sufficient.

No, I'm saying that the people asking whether something is "ontologically basic" are arguing cartography. Also it's funny how they only ask the question of things they don't believe exist.

2[anonymous]
Ok I'm in agreement with that.

So let me get this straight? You're trying to argue that we should avoid saying things that make people feel uncomfortable in order to prevent groupthink?

4fubarobfusco
No, I'm saying that if you systematically repel people with different experiences from your own, you'll get more groupthink. More pointedly, if you exclude people who have had a particular experience from your discussion, but try to draw conclusions about those people's experiences, abilities, opinions, or motives, you're probably going to get clueless results — or at least, results that do not reflect a serious inquiry. (For instance, look at groups of atheists who speculate about how "insane" religious people are; or an exclusively-male group speculating about What Women Want. If they were actually interested in acquiring facts about the experiences or motives of religious folks or women, wouldn't they care to listen to some?)

If indeed there are people who see atheism as fundamentally disconnected from general-purpose rationalism, or who don't see the promotion of atheism as a mere corollary of the promotion of a general rationalist worldview, or who object to making the atheist movement about rationality and science rather than mere disbelief in god, then I do think those people are wrong.

The problem is that's not what Myers was trying to do with Atheism Plus. The values he wanted to introduce were those of the "social justice" crowd, a.k.a., the people who belie... (read more)

As it happens I am familiar with the Gracchian riots, they certainly weren't indicative of the fall of the Roman Empire as the Roman Empire didn't exist then; however, the riots were most definitely indicative of the collapse of the Roman Republic.

3gwern
The 'collapse' of the Roman Republic didn't involve barbarians. Which was the point of the observation. Should America one day 'collapse', may God send us a collapse as dire and apocalyptic and with terrible outcomes as the collapse of the Roman Republic...

I could do this with any other theory of physics just as easily, e.g., in Newtonian mechanics are are particles ontologically basic, or are points in the universal phase space?

Edit: Also, I never said the concrete was incoherent, I said the concept of "ontologically basic" was incoherent.

0TheAncientGeek
I don't that is clear cut, because space and points have often often been denied any reality Concrete was my tablets version of concept.
2[anonymous]
You're arguing issues of cartography, not geography.

The stagnation will be visible in a dramatic way (eg. barbarians looting New York City)

That happened a while ago.

0gwern
And yet, NYC is still there, and unlike Rome post-barbarians, has only grown in population. EDIT: and to expand on my point with Rome, disturbances are very common in great metropolises and imperial capitals; pointing to a blackout from over a third of a century ago as indicating the decline of America is like pointing to the Marian or Gracchian riots in Rome as indicating the fall of the Roman empire. (What, you don't remember either? Exactly.)

actually, I don't think it tried any such thing anyway.

They held elections and put the people who got majority into positions of power.

In any case, you seem to be arguing for old-style colonialism based on crushing military superiority.

Old-style colonialism wasn't based on crushing military superiority, during the British Raj the number of British born troops in India was a tiny fraction the the native troops. Thus the British relied on the cooperation of large numbers of Indians and Indian troops.

Even leaving aside whether it will work in our t

... (read more)
2Lumifer
Elections are no big deal. Mugabe holds elections, Putin holds elections, hey, even Assad recently held elections. Yes, it was. Certainly, it wasn't just military superiority, especially once the colonies were established, and the British, for example, became masters of control through political and financial means as well. However the military strength was the underlying bedrock. Which particular laws of nature do you have in mind?

Attempt Harry's trick to solve NP problems.

For certain conversations, yes. Others, no.

For conversations about the topic that don't involve you conceding all points to him, yes.

3Luke_A_Somers
I suggest that these conversations could include whether his way of interpreting that position is correct.

In that case, I don't understand the comparison you're making in the grandparent.

3fubarobfusco
palladias seemed to be asserting that trolling people who are wrong was morally inferior to civil disobedience: My question was whether this generalizes to cases where we might choose to make someone who is wrong look ridiculous in public, to discredit their cause (e.g. by trolling them) but where we could not rightfully oppose them using civil disobedience, because the matter at hand involved a third party (e.g. the child of an antivaccinationist).

Provoke them by illicitly vaccinating their children without their consent

That's not trolling, that's battery at least.

2fubarobfusco
Uh, that's what I said.

In order to have a useful conversation about the topic it will be necessary to challenge his implicit claim. If he insists on making that impossible then its not possible to have a reasonable conversation with him.

3Luke_A_Somers
For certain conversations, yes. Others, no.

I was tempted to give Siam as a successful example instead, if only because they managed to never be colonized,

The reason Siam was never colonized was that it served as a buffer state between British Burma and French Indo-China. This suggests another method to avoid colonization. Play rival would-be colonizers against each other.

Kinda like the US experience in Afghanistan

The difference is that the US attempted to establish democracy, i.e., hand over power to the locals as quickly as possible, I believe Daniel's plan would avoid this.

(and the Russian experience there before, and the British experience there before that...)

The problem both the Russians and British had was interference by rival powers, the US and Russia respectively. The Russians also had the problem that the economic system they wanted to impose being dysfunctional.

2Lumifer
I don't think it mattered what the US attempted to establish and, actually, I don't think it tried any such thing anyway. In any case, you seem to be arguing for old-style colonialism based on crushing military superiority. Even leaving aside whether it will work in our times, I am pretty sure that's not what OP has in mind.

But also, there's a large difference between being targeted for economic subjugation only (as Japan was) and being targeted for territorial control (as in, imperial subject moving onto your land en masse), as the native Americans, native Australians, and Maori were.

Part of the reason Japan wasn't targeted for territorial control is that it was clear to everyone that Japan would be able to resist.

I don't know enough about Native Americans to say exactly how I'd go about the equivalent of a Meiji Restoration, but that's what I would attempt.

Then Japanese were much more similar to the Europeans then Native Americans. For starters they had a government. Furthermore, they had developed some institutions that were similar to western institutions, or at least more similar than anything else outside the West.

I'd pass laws mandating compulsory Westernisation,

First you'd need to create a bureaucracy capable of enforcing laws.

It's possible to continue a conversation with someone who's every statement is laced with "nigga" but it takes effort. And no one is obligated to expend their energy on having a conversation with me

Conversely, it also take effort to carry on a conversation when you're constantly trying to avoid saying "um".

6fubarobfusco
There are support groups that can help you with that.

It can be worth it to pause and reconsider your language even if the offensiveness of a word or idea is exactly the subject of your dispute. When I hosted a debate on "R: Fire Eich" one of the early speakers made it clear that, in his opinion, opposing gay marriage was logically equivalent to endorsing gay genocide (he invoked a slippery slope argument back to the dark days of criminal indifference to AIDS).

This is not just about the same word having different meanings. His feeling contains an implicit substantive claim about slippery slopes (not to mention a false narrative of the early history of AIDS).

6Luke_A_Somers
He may be wrong, but that doesn't mean that you can't have a useful conversation, and to do that, you'll need to pick words.

I don't think justice fits well under compassion

Thinking about this people making this mistake explains a lot of bad thinking these days. In particular, "social justice" looks a lot like what you get by trying to shoehorn justice under compassion.

So to use my former example of the Great Filter Hypothesis: sure, it makes predictions, sure, we can assign probabilities, sure, we can do updates. But nothing about the Great Filter Hypothesis is constructive or causal, nothing about it tells us what to expect the Filter to do or how it actually works. Which means it's not actually telling us much at all, as far as I can say.

Yes it is causal in the same sense that mathematics of physical laws are causal.

In relation to Overcoming Bias, I've ranted on similarly about explaining all possible human behav

... (read more)

Well, with your modifications these map pretty clearly to six of the seven Christian virtues, the missing one being Hope.

3Nornagest
An earlier version of my comment went into more depth on the seven Christian virtues. I rejected it because I didn't feel the mapping was all that good. Courage/valor is traditionally identified with the classical virtue of fortitude, but I feel the emphasis there is actually quite different; fortitude is about acceptance of pain in the service of some greater goal, while Ialdabaoth's valor is more about facing up to anxiety/doubt/possible future pain. In particular, I don't think Openness maps very well at all to fortitude. Likewise, the theological virtue of faith maps pretty well to conviction if you stop at that word, but not once you put the emphasis on resolve/grit/heroic effort. Prudence could probably be inserted unmodified (though I think it could be named more clearly). Justice is a tricky one; I'm not sure what I'd do with it.
Load More