LESSWRONG
LW

All of Vivid's Comments + Replies

Pascal's wager re-examined
Vivid00

deleted

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
-1PhilGoetz
What is the iterated lossy cross-scale Keynesian beauty contest? I can't tell whether anything you said is supposed to imply that there is a flaw in my reasoning. "Supporting whatever agentic information cascades have already most effectively burrowed themselves into the most salient cultural-political sphere" is not obviously wrong. When I provide a step-by-step argument that assigns a probability to each step and then multiplies them together, it has a limited number of places to attack; and you didn't mention any of them. I don't understand much of what you wrote; but my impression is that you are trying to pull the discussion back into vague, subjective regions that provide endless opportunities for rhetorical displays, and no danger of making progress.
The Bias You Didn't Expect
Vivid250

Beware the sometimes subtle trap of thinking that, since you have thought about a big decision/belief at seemingly random intervals for a whole week (month, year) now, you have perspective on the decision/belief from a representative variety of your states of mind. State-dependent memory, habits, priming &c. make this unlikely unless you were deliberately making an effort.

Reply
What are you working on? April 2011
Vivid10

deleted

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
3jimrandomh
No one has, because CDT isn't rigorous enough to bring into a proof framework without first disambiguating it, and there is at least one disambiguation that one-boxes and at least one disambiguation that two-boxes.
When is it ever rational to enter a sweepstakes where you may have a 1/10,000 chance of winning?
Vivid20

Ignoring sweepstakes as such[1], a focused rationalist should regard all bets with odds far from a coin flip with suspicion; there are often better bets, and with more information for calibration.

[1] Perhaps justifiably, as the "may" in the title of this Discussion post implies more uncertainty than you find in a typical sweepstake scenario where the fine print and simple arithmetic are enough calculation in themselves.

Reply
3jwhendy
Indeed, and this made me wonder if we attach some privileged weight to things explicitly defined as "the lottery" and "sweepstakes." In other words, are they such because they give you a chance at a prize for no money down? If that's all, then someone who can reliably win at poker or some other set-ruled game could be said to be winning "sweepstakes" all the time were we able to conclude that their skills made it highly improbable that the buy-in would ever be lost (thus equivalent to "no money down", in a sense).