I think this version of Pascal's mugging could be rejected if you think that "infinite negative utility" is not a phrase that means anything, without appealing to probability of 0.
However, I still accept 0 and 1 as valid probabilities, because that is how probability is defined in the mathematical structures and proofs that underpin all of the probability theory we use, and as far as I know no other foundation of probability (up to isophorism)has been rigorously defined and explored.
The fact that measure#measure_space) is nonnegative, instead of positive, is a relevant fact and if you're going to claim 0 and 1 are not probabilities, you had better be ready to... (read more)
I'll take a look, thanks!
Either way is fine with me, but if you can express in any way what you think "average" is for some of these skills, I would like to know because now I'm really curious.
Thanks for taking so much time to keep responding to a fairly random commenter!
What statement, specifically, would we be betting on? It's certainly plausible that I'm underestimating the difficulty in getting an entire group to above these standards in comparison to getting one person. Though, I think the main issue may be a difference in what we perceive as average, rather than a model of how hard learning these skills is.
. And while competence does tend to cluster (e.g. "G"), so the picture's not quite as bleak as the second half of this sentence, once you've got a dozen different domains and shooting to be above the 50% mark in all of them, you're looking at a person who's approximating one in four thousand,
I don't think these skills are anywhere near independent. It's also not obvious that they're normally distributed. And, being above the 50% mark in a dozen skills by coincidence being unlikely does not at all tell you how hard it is to gain skills if you put in some deliberate work.
I generally am sympathetic to the argument that... (read more)
Your original comment, though harsh, at least contained some useful insights. Don't ruin that by posting comments that are nothing more than 6 lines of insults that no one wants to read.
... (read 667 more words →)I do somewhat agree with your objections to the list of specific skills attained after a year. I had hoped that the large word DRAFT at the top, plus the repeated statements that the whole plan was to iterate, and that I didn't expect to be able to figure out the right stuff on the first try, would've clued you in to the fact that I, too, am aware that the list is inadequate. Do you have specific suggestions for replacements? Keep in mind, the hard problem is to balance things-that-will-be-generally-useful-for-a-medium-sized-group-of-people against the fact that everyone involved has their own specific career and expertise already. Part of the impetus here is social,
I rather forgot about this due to being accidentally logged out of this account and not realizing so until later. If I were to try my hand at this, what would be the best place to see what's already been done (without having to click through arbital) and submit my contributions?
If you're still looking for content, I could be persuaded to start (slowly) working on some set theory/analysis concepts.
Actually meets every saturday. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Central+Market,+4001+N+Lamar+Blvd,+Austin,+TX+78756/
So then the probability you assign to their ability to actually affect that change can be assigned a correspondingly small, nonzero number, even if you don't want to assign 0 probability.