Fantastic, I wish I'd had this back when almost everyone in LW/EA circles I met was reading the biography of everyone in the ' fortune 400 and trying to spot the common factors. A surprisingly common strategy that's likely not to work for exactly these reasons.
Notice I said nothing at all about racism or our policy responses to race. Of course intra-group variation is more important, that's obvious and applies to height too. This much is well known and irrelevant to my point.
The thing I'm interested here is why it's commonly accepted that there ought (in a strong moral sense) to be no correlation. Not our response to the actual existence of that correlation.
I hope it is false.
I think this is the most interesting sentence in the whole discussion.
Let's be clear. Racial groupings are really very significant pieces of evidence. There's huge amounts of genetics that correlates, huge amounts of culture that correlates, huge amounts of wider environment that correlates. It would be frankly astonishing if things like IQ, reaction time, hight, life expectancy, and rates of disease didn't also correlate.
So, we ought to expect to see a correlation, and in fact a whole bunch of studies say we do. ... And then those studies are put under far more than average pressure. See people below wanting to dismiss Raven's Progressive Matrices as culturally biased. Why on earth do we want there to be no such correlation with IQ.
We're very happy to say there's a correlation between race and hight, between race and life expectancy, between race and disease, between race and income. Why not race and IQ? Why do we want that to be false?
Thanks for that. Sorry, should have explained my meaning better. I was looking for a clue of the form "the chapter translates it as 'defeated' but it actually means 'banished'" or similar. Along the lines of Harry's massive mistranslation of 'nihil supernum'.
Ok, I'm now frustrated and bored by online translators. Can someone give me a hand and translate that? I get some of it, but never enough to actually check meaning properly.
Can I just make clear my role here. 1) I've had general conversation with Jonathan about CEA and MIRI, in which several of these criticisms were raised. 2) I checked over the numbers for the GWWC impact assessment. 3) I've also said that criticism in public is often productive, and that public scrutiny of CEA on LW would be helpful for people choosing between it and MIRI. 4) I saw a draft of the post before it was published.
I want to make it very clear that: 1) I do not endorse this post. 2) I did not do detailed fact-checking for it. 3) I do not want this post to be seen as my view, either in a private capacity or with my CEA hat on. 4) That I'm deeply sorry if my actions have harmed the reputation of CEA. This was never my intention.
Adam Casey
Is it obvious that the second attitude would be terribly much harder to achieve? By which I mean is it clear that the cost of becoming sufficiently conservative is higher than the cost of the pain?
No problem.
Have updated the post, sorry for misreading your writing.
Make the game end when the clock runs over, or when the snitch is caught, whichever is sooner. And make the snitch worth ~half the typical point spread of a match.