Less credulous than who? All your groups are far, far, extremely more credulous about cryonics on average than, say, me, or neurobiology experts, or most people I know. More credulous than many cryonics proponents, too.
As for the rather minor differences between the averages within your groups… Said groups joined the site at different times, have different age, have discovered this site for different reasons (I gather you get more scifi fans now). You even got a general trend towards increased estimates.
That you go on and ignore all signs of co-founding, even as blatantly in-your-face as last year’s “proto-rationalists” and this year’s “experienced rationalists” having the same average of 15%, and instead conclude some lower credulity due to training, is clearly an example of the kind of reasoning that shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Human brain is big and messy, it consists of many regions that do different things. The notion of “taking ideas seriously”, coupled with a thought disorder, is a recipe for utter disaster; coupled with some odd lesion in right hemisphere it might be helpful though.
My hypothesis is that normally the belief updates and expected value estimates are done in a way that is not available for introspection, much like how visual object recognition (a form of very advanced evidence processing) is outside introspection. For cryonics, normally those processes report a very low expected value.
edit: also see this . It’s mostly about the ratios between extreme cryonics believers, the cryonics subscribers possibly suffering from some buyer’s remorse, and folks who give the usual (quite low) estimate. Why and how the ratios changed, that’s a very different question.
Less credulous than who? All your groups are far, far, extremely more credulous about cryonics on average than, say, me, or neurobiology experts, or most people I know. More credulous than many cryonics proponents, too.
As for the rather minor differences between the averages within your groups… Said groups joined the site at different times, have different age, have discovered this site for different reasons (I gather you get more scifi fans now). You even got a general trend towards increased estimates.
That you go on and ignore all signs of co-founding, even as blatantly in-your-face as last year’s “proto-rationalists” and this year’s “experienced rationalists” having the same average of 15%, and instead conclude some lower credulity due to training, is clearly an example of the kind of reasoning that shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Human brain is big and messy, it consists of many regions that do different things. The notion of “taking ideas seriously”, coupled with a thought disorder, is a recipe for utter disaster; coupled with some odd lesion in right hemisphere it might be helpful though.
My hypothesis is that normally the belief updates and expected value estimates are done in a way that is not available for introspection, much like how visual object recognition (a form of very advanced evidence processing) is outside introspection. For cryonics, normally those processes report a very low expected value.
edit: also see this . It’s mostly about the ratios between extreme cryonics believers, the cryonics subscribers possibly suffering from some buyer’s remorse, and folks who give the usual (quite low) estimate. Why and how the ratios changed, that’s a very different question.