This isn't hugely relevant to the post, but LessWrong doesn't really provide a means for a time-sensitive link dump, and it seems a shame to miss the opportunity to promote an excellent site for a slight lack of functionality.
For any cricket fans that have been enjoying the Ashes, here is a very readable description of Bayesian statistics applied to cricket batting averages.
Although I didn't actually comment, I based my choice on the fact that most people only seem to be able cope with two or three recursions before they get bored and pick an option. The evidence for this was based on the game where you have to pick a number between 0-100 that is 2/3 of the average guess. I seem to recall that the average guess is about 30, way off true limit of 0.
I'd be interested. So far my schedule has prevented me from attending most of the London meetups, and I live there, so i can't guarantee anything.
I think you're probably correct in your presumptions. I find it an interesting idea and would certainly follow any further discussion.
I don't think you'd have much success mastering non verbal communication through skype.
I think it may have something to do with limiting violence.
I'm trying to remember the reference (it might be Hanson or possibly the book the Red Queen Hypothesis - if I remember I'll post it) but a vast majority of violence is over access to women, at least in primitive societies. Obviously mongamy means that the largest number of males get access to a female, thereby reducing losses in violent competition to females. I think this would certainly explain why rich societies tend to be monogamous - less destructive waste.
Additionally I can imagine societies with high levels of polygyny (think emperors with giant harems) could be extremely unstable due to sexual jealousy, but that's mere speculation.
Apologies if this has already been posted - I was late to this thread and there's an unmanageable number of comments to search through.
This might be of interest to people here; it's an example of a genuine confusion over probability that came up in a friends medical research today. It's not particularly complicated, but I guess it's nice to link these things to reality.
My friend is a medical doctor and, as part of a PhD, he is testing peoples sense of smell. He asked if I would take part in a preliminary experiment to help him get to grips with the experimental details.
At the start of the experiment, he places 20 compounds in front of you, 10 of which are type A and 10 of which are type B. You have to select two from... (read more)
I'm interested, definitely online, possibly IRL. I'm in London.
I'm going to the H+ event but I'm also going to the dinner, so I'm not sure how that will fit in with the pub. If I can make it, I will.
I'll also come to the 6/6 meet up.
I'm sure this talk will be of interest, even if most of the ideas that he talks about will be familiar to readers here.
[edit]
In this talk David Deutsch discusses "the most important discovery in human history"; how humanity moved beyond a few hundred thousand years of complete ignorance about the universe. Deutsch attempts to be specific about what led to this change - he concludes that it is the insistence that an explanation be 'hard to vary'.
Whilst a 'hard to vary' explanation is functionally the same as a, more commonly known, Occam's Razor explanation (since fewer parameters necessarily make a fit harder to vary) the slightly different emphasis might be a useful... (read more)
I attended the minicamp last summer, at more personal expense than most participants, since I flew in from europe (I did have other things to do in California, so the cost wasn't entirely for minicamp).
If you want an analogy with minicamp, think of an academic summer school. At the most important level, I think the only thing that really separates minicamp (or an academic summer school) from christian camps is that the things they teach at minicamp (and summer schools) are mostly correct.
I go to summer schools to learn from people who have thought about things that I care about, in greater depth than I have. If you don't believe that... (read more)