Adding on to that, these three links seem to be broken because of a stray %0A:
Alexander Wissner-Gross. Planetary-scale intelligence.
Tyler Cowen & Michael Vassar. Debate on the Great Stagnation.
Dileep George and Scott Brown. From planes to brains: building AI the Wright way.
I think that the answer to 2 is incorrect.
Yeah. According to Google, the experiment did find that people neglect base rates:
Kahneman and Tversky (1973) observed that the mean [estimate of the probability that Jack is an engineer] in the two groups, one receiving the base rate information 30 to 70, the other receiving 70 to 30, were for the most part the same
Ironically, when analyzing the experiment, the Vanity Fair writers failed Bayes theorem in the opposite way: neglecting evidence, thus making the posterior equal to the prior.
We conclude that people don't understand Bayes.
Students manage conflicts by simply skipping class sessions. Last semester, I often skipped two thirds of my class sessions. As long as you read lecture notes, do the work, and show up to tests, you're fine.
At MIT, some students take 8+ classes over ~15 weeks. This involves lots of busywork and an expectation of getting the highest grade (an A). [They also often do side projects.]
Scott Young aims to complete classes at the same rate. But he's skipping much of the busywork and requiring merely passing grades. I wouldn't be surprised if he pulls it off.
I'm an MIT student and currently spend 60-100 hours/class. Taking Young's approach, I could probably average 30 hours/class, which for 33 classes might be doable in about 2 months... Maybe doing 33 MIT classes in 1 month is something for a Tim Ferriss.
So, if I were to make you a bet that #1-and-#2 is true [then you should rationally accept it if] gjmgain0.01>owengain0.99..
If you seriously made such a bet, then gjm would probably update on that evidence and revise his 99% probability upwards.
[But as gjm says the bet is impractical anyway because it's too hard to resolve]
nobody has bothered much with trying to steer [discussions] closer to reality
Feels like you have forbidden knowledge. Not coincidentally, I want to know what it is.
What is it roughly? That innate differences across the sexes play a strong role in causing statistically different mating behaviors to develop? That these differences end up somewhat resembling "females want high-value sex and a devoted father while males want sex and sexually faithful partners"? That females are often attracted to high value behavior (e.g. PUA stuff)? That many peo...
Feels like you have forbidden knowledge. Not coincidentally, I want to know what it is.
It goes something like "Do this... No, that is the opposite of what works, do this... No, you're manipulative and it's unethical to say that... No, saying that it is manipulative is crazy political indoctrination... People here are Pigs... No we're not... Yes you are, manipulative pigs... that's not what your mom said last night." (And somehwere in there is HughRistik writing a massive treatise. If you want to get all the best of such conversations just read through this)
Previous discussion on the same video: http://lesswrong.com/lw/2xe/interesting_talk_on_bayesians_and_frequentists/
Simon Cowell is known as the brutally honest [singing contest] judge. He worked himself up in the music industry and doesn't seem to be a nutjob. Personally, I think his name is good for the reputation of cryonics.
Animated GIFs look unprofessional.
In rich countries, there are strong correlations between income inequality and imprisonment rates (graph), and between income inequality and homicide rates (graph). As for selection bias, the authors of the graphs took the 50 richest countries over population 3 million for which data was available. Data sources here.
Yesterday as a creative activity I spent a couple hours making up tweets. It was actually really fun and cathartic! The last four had something to do with rationality:
I'm a politician and I'm not going to change my opinion because it'll make me look bad. So shut up.
I'm a guy. I like that girl, so it's time to project my desires onto her and rapidly turn her off.
"Anti-game" is quite common and involves being excessively nice thereby signaling very low value. Related to how humans have difficulty modeling others (typical mind ...
Though potentially harmful to the LW community, such a post could be quite instrumental (especially given your scholarly style) for some, so I encourage you to write it. If deemed inappropriate for LW due to its negative externalities, the post can be placed on another site (or maybe in the discussion section?).
Seems to me that Richard is roughly talking about instrumental rationality, while Konkvistador is roughly talking about epistemic rationality. Let's not quibble over the word rationality.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, a US reconnaissance plane over Cuba was shot down by a Soviet missile without authorization from Moscow. This "stray" shot very nearly caused nuclear war. (For more examples of a lack of government control in the Cuban Missile Crisis see section VI on this outline. By the way, it would be interesting to analyze the plentiful existential risk irrationality during this Crisis. The Crisis tapes are now declassified.)
If the US and the USSR had trouble controlling their guns, it's likely the amateurish, heavily-armed North Korean state also does.
And more generally this seems to be an instance of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic. In this case the anchor is the present situation (North Korea bombing stuff), and South Korea is evaluating the acceptableness of a policy option. Change the anchor and - voila - the evaluation changes.
Taking advantage of an enemy's thinking flaws is one of the most effective ways a small organization can influence a larger opponent. Distractions and disruptions can prompt overreaction or under-reaction. In the case of 9/11 or WikiLeaks, possibly overreaction by the US government. In the case of North Korea, possibly under-reaction by South Korea.
you could prove that (A => B) and (B => C) and (C => D) and (D => F) Justice would nod its head and agree, but then, when you turned to claim your coup de grace, A => F irrevocably, Justice would demur and revoke the axiom of transitivity, for Justice will not be told when F stands for freedom.
I think Justice really, really should let emself be told when F stands for freedom.
Since we overestimate the strength of conjunctions, transitive chains may be weaker than they appear. So unless the issue is entirely clear-cut, it's reasonable fo...
If you use the Bayes approach with a Beta(x,y) prior, all you do is for each post add x to the # of upvotes, add y to the # of downvotes, and then compute the % of votes which are upvotes. [1]
In my college AI class we used this exact method with x=y=1 to adjust for low sample size. Someone should switch out the clunky frequentist method reddit apparently uses with this Bayesian method!
[1] This seems to be what it says in the pdf.