You can't justify a point, but you could justify a range by speficfying temperatures where it becomes uncomforable. Actually, specifying a range is just specifying the give point with less resolution.
In what way is "deserve" a matter of fact?
Depending on the outcome specificied and the type of feelings attended to, of course.
Youtube + "econstories". :) (Preferably not just that, but it's good and if you haven't seen it you should.)
Everyone knows utilitarians are more likely to break rules.
(This is mostly a joke based on the misspelling. I know a sophisticated utilitarianism would consider the effect of widespread lawbreaking and not necessarily break laws so much as to be overrepresented in prison)
I guess if you read it loosely. I think the official LW position would be (correct me if I am wrong) an em of kokotajlod that has high enough fidelity to replicate his decision making process is him; what he is is a particular set of hueristics, instincts, etc, that accompany his body but could theoretically exist outside it. That does match his statement if one reads it as refering to something more like a platonic concept than a spiritual essence.
Horrified we allowed wildlife to go on? What alternative do you propose?
Personally I find usually more interesting material in the open threads than the discussion area or the main. I take this to mean I am at least somewhat outside of the core target audience of the site.
I don't think he was jumping to malice, rather delusion or bias.
Again, provided we are comfortable with disparate impact and all.
I thought the research was that liberals didn't have purity axis of morality (Haidt, is it?).
Haidt's claim is that liberals rely on purity/sacredness relatively less often, but it's still there. Some of the earlier work on the purity axis put heavy emphasis on sex or sin. Since then, Haidt has acknowledged that the difference between liberals and conservatives might even out if you add food or environmental concerns to purity.
A little water holds a lot of heat, comparitively.
In other words, he didn't think your comment added much to his original.
Google only turns up "About 915,000,000 results" for anti-science.
Well, assuming you mean "ai in an undiscernable facsimile of a human body" then maybe that's so, and if so, it is probably a less blatant but equally final existential risk.
I think spending thousands on magic is the land of diminishing returns. Though, if he has a local game store, he could draft every week for $500/year, and that includes both the social experience and the cards.
That is good evidence, but I'd disbelieve its reliability a bit because it is so funny. Like obese dieticians, or non-rich investment brokers, or divorced marriage counselors.
Driving is just something humans happen to be competent at.
I don't think it is pure chance, since it was designed in iterations around human capabilites.
Do you actually say you "study the singularity" or give a more in depth explanation? I ask because the word study is usually used only in reference to things that do or have exisited, rather than to speculative future events.
I assumed it wasn't net, but the amount of water excreted, regardless of consumption. Though those probably are not unrelated processes.
B didn't choose to win the lottery; B choose to play the lottery. Surely when considering whether an action would be good to take, one would have to consider all the attempts that didn't lead to success?
Who is the we there? I'm not declaiming responsibility, but interested in who these women feel is pressuring them. I'd wager it's largely a status competition with other women.
There is certainly an inner drive, more pronounced in women, because species without such a drive don't make it though natural selection.
A developmentally complex species needs a drive to care for offspring. A simple species just needs a drive to reproduce.
ETA: What Lumifer said
But the point is, is steelmanning someone making a better model of them than just taking them at their own words? If the point is in fact to understand them, rather than to challenge your own position, and they are arguing competantly and honestly, it probably is. Edit: Meant "is not"!
Why would you think I didn't do such analyses before having children?
Well, because most people don't, therefore you certainly didn't. It's, uh, Bayesian or something.
three aspects of parenting that I suspect are the main reasons why people choose to have kids or not: the financial case, the moral case, and the practical case
None of these are reasons to choose to have kids; they are all reasons not to. That is, even if you refute them, you still haven't made a positive case.
...This brings up the issue of whether or not you "owe" your child an all expenses paid college education. I wouldn't rule out only paying partially for your child's college education especially since this calculation assumes only one c
Not sure what you mean by that. You feel European conservativism is crazy? You feel the interpretation of US conservatism is crazy? You feel US conservatives are functionally identical to crazy, if not actually so?
It's an interesting topic, the moreso because it is taboo, and not exactly tangential to the subject, I think.
If terminal values are definitionally immutable, than I used the wrong term.
Just imagine that you would have a certain proof (by observing parallel universes, or by simulations done by superhuman AI) that e.g. a tolerance of homosexuality inevitably leads to a destruction of civilization, or that every civilization that invents nanotechnology inevitably destroys itself in nanotechnological wars unless the whole planet is united under rule of the communist party. If you had a good reason to believe these models, what would your values make you do?
Perfect information scenarios are useful in clarifying some cases, I suppose (and...
That makes sense. I mean, whether you cut fat or carbs you still have access to a variety of meat and vegetables, and people would want to study one variable at a time.
Or there's multiple needs that play on the same mechanism, making it harder to tangle out specific causes, rather than simpler. You need calories and nutrients from food to function properly, why should hunger only arise from one?
And also, you are assuming we have identified every micronutrient are are capable of adequately fortifying a donut with them.
Has there been a comparrison done of the relative micro-nutrient levels of low carb vs low fat diets? I think its very plausible that nutrient deficiency could manifest as hunger, generating weight gain as the body compels oneself to eat enough to fulfill nutrient requirements despite the excess of calories.
No, I think people can be persuaded on terminal values, although to an extent that modifies my response above; rationality will tell you that certain values are more likely to conflict, and noticing internal contradictions--pitting two vales against each other--is one way to convince someone to alter--or just adjust the relative worth of--their terminal values. Due to the complexity of social reality I don't think you are going to find too many with beliefs that are perfectly consistent; that is, any mainstream political affiliations is unlikely to be a shinning paragon of coherance and logical progression built upon core principles relative to its competitors. But demonstrate with examples if I'm wrong.
You do not have to eliminate other explanations to accept genetic causes. A combination is likely. Bu you have to prove other causes explain all the effect in all cases to prove genetic equivalence.
I think political differences come down to values moreso than beliefs about facts. Rationalism doesn't dictate terminal values.
I think political differences come down to values moreso than beliefs about facts.
Sometimes it is difficult to find out what is the different value and what is essentially the same value but different models.
For example two people can have a value of "it would be bad to destroy humanity", but one of them has a model that humanity will likely destroy itself with ongoing capitalism, while the other has a model that humanity would be likely destroyed by some totalitarian movement like communism.
But instead of openly discussing their models and fi...
For various levels of superficiality, yeah.
"The first should not have anything to do with how rational you are, while the second very much should. " What does should mean there, and from where do you derive it?
More dilute compared to the (cellular) mass of a person? That's a rather lot of water.
Well, it's a move in the direction away from the murderous connotations held by genocide. And taken literally it is pretty descriptive of the goals of eugenics.
This is usually an acknowledged exception; whether the rationale for it to be an exception rather than counter evidence holds, I don't recall.
"Fan" is a funny word in this contex. It brings to mind people who go around shouting "Yea, Diversity!" non-ironically. Except, there are people who more or less do that, it isn't the HBD crowd, and in fact diversity boosters don't even really believe in it.
Edit: Sorry, missed the correct coment to reply to.
Ethnic cleansing seems appropriate.
edit: That is, the term seems appropriate.
I think you are covering a lot of distance by stretching "don't advocate violence" into "don't say anything that someone feels the widespread adoption of could be potentially dangerous."
It is about honest discussion of issues with political implications, I believe, without unnecessarily belaboring those implications.
Yes, the complaint strikes me as "Stop saying things we don't like, it might lead to disapproved opinions being silenced!
That and that when the supply of labor increases, the demand will go down.
My skepticism at the moment is only about (quoting Chris from above) "Studies have linked saturated fat to cholesterol levels and through cholesterol levels to heart disease." (Well, and a bit with regards to cancer) I have seen such studies analyzed with alternative explanation convincingly by, for example, Uwe Ravnskov, Malcom Kendrick, Chris Masterjohn or Denise Minger, and wonder if there is more convincing evidence they atre excluding.
Nutrionism (meaning mainstream health science?) and health are of course much more broadly defined and not doubt contain many factual statements, for example on how to prevent scurvy, that don't necessarily protect the entire field from the possibility of error.
Can you cite the one or two most convincing studies that saturated fat is a principle cause of heart disease? I have seen a lot from the other side and would like to get a fuller picture.
working for my cheap mobile phone, not for my new laptop with IE. Which is a shame, because it's a very good post, but I'm going to be way behind to contribute to any comment threads.
edit: Shame for me, I mean, not for the observer concerne with signal to noise ratio.