I can think of another 3 reasons to explain Bayes theorem in terms of mammograms (or “mammographies” if you prefer) - boobs, torture and the mathematical ignorance of physicians.
Tolerance is over-rated (although it’s a Masonic virtue so I’m supposed to like it): to me, the word has supercilious connotations—kind of “I’m going to permit you to persist in error, unmolested, coz I’m just that awesome”.
I prefer acceptance: after you have harangued someone with everything that’s wrong with their view of the problem, give up and accept that they’re idiots.
Tolerance is over-rated (although it’s a Masonic virtue so I’m supposed to like it): to me, the word has supercilious connotations—kind of “I’m going to permit you to persist in error, unmolested, coz I’m just that awesome”.
I prefer acceptance: after you have harangued someone with everything that’s wrong with their view of the problem, give up and accept that they’re idiots.
Firstly, that is the most blatant derailing of a thread I have ever seen.
Secondly, the main advantage of “tolerance” is that most people cannot, by definition, be in a better position to judge on certain issues than most other people—and indeed will almost certainly be wrong about at least some of their beliefs. Thus, it is irrational to impose your beliefs on others if you have no reason to think you are more rational then they are (see also Auman’s Agreement Theorem.) Of course, it is also irrational to believe you are right in this situation, but at least it’s not harming people.
The most extreme example of this principle would be someone programming in their beliefs regarding morality directly into a Seed AI. Since they are almost certainly wrong about something, the AI will then proceed to destroy the world and tile the universe with orgasmium or whatever.
What was the title of the post? Something about tolerance, if I’m not mistaken.
As to your ‘secondly’ point… I absolutely agree with the statement that “most people cannot, by definition, be in a better position to judge on certain issues than most other people” (emphasis mine—in fact I would extend that to say on most issues of more than minimal complexity).
Absolutely key point to bear in mind is that if you harangue someone about a problem when you’re not in a better position to judge on that particular issue, you’re being an asshat. That’s why I tend to limit my haranguing to matters of (deep breath)...
Economics (in which I have a double-major First, with firsts in Public Finance, Macro, Micro, Quantitative Economic Policy, International Economics, Econometric Theory and Applied Econometrics) and
Econometrics (and the statistical theory underpinning it) for which I took straight Firsts at Masters;
Quantitative analysis of economic policy (and economic modelling generally). which I did for a living for half a decade and taught to undergraduates (3rd year and Honours).
I babble with muted authority on
expectations (having published on, and having been asked to advise my nation’s Treasury on, modelling them in financial markets within macroeconometric models), and
the modelling paradigm in general (having worked for almost a decade at one of the world’s premier economic modelling think tanks, and having dabbled in a [still-incomplete] PhD in stochastic simulation using a computable general-equilibrium model).
And yet I constantly find myself being told things about economics, utility maximisation, agency problems, and so forth, by autodidacts who think persentio ergo rectum is a research methodology.
What was the title of the post? Something about tolerance, if I’m not mistaken.
So why not comment on the post, hmm?
Absolutely key point to bear in mind is that if you harangue someone about a problem when you’re not in a better position to judge on that particular issue, you’re being an asshat.
Oh, of course. If you genuinely have good reason to believe you know better than (group) beyond the evidence you have that you are right then it is perfectly reasonable to act on it. But since most of the time you’re probably not in that position, it seems to me that cultivating tolerance is a good idea.
I can think of another 3 reasons to explain Bayes theorem in terms of mammograms (or “mammographies” if you prefer) - boobs, torture and the mathematical ignorance of physicians.
Tolerance is over-rated (although it’s a Masonic virtue so I’m supposed to like it): to me, the word has supercilious connotations—kind of “I’m going to permit you to persist in error, unmolested, coz I’m just that awesome”.
I prefer acceptance: after you have harangued someone with everything that’s wrong with their view of the problem, give up and accept that they’re idiots.
Firstly, that is the most blatant derailing of a thread I have ever seen.
Secondly, the main advantage of “tolerance” is that most people cannot, by definition, be in a better position to judge on certain issues than most other people—and indeed will almost certainly be wrong about at least some of their beliefs. Thus, it is irrational to impose your beliefs on others if you have no reason to think you are more rational then they are (see also Auman’s Agreement Theorem.) Of course, it is also irrational to believe you are right in this situation, but at least it’s not harming people.
The most extreme example of this principle would be someone programming in their beliefs regarding morality directly into a Seed AI. Since they are almost certainly wrong about something, the AI will then proceed to destroy the world and tile the universe with orgasmium or whatever.
What was the title of the post? Something about tolerance, if I’m not mistaken.
As to your ‘secondly’ point… I absolutely agree with the statement that “most people cannot, by definition, be in a better position to judge on certain issues than most other people” (emphasis mine—in fact I would extend that to say on most issues of more than minimal complexity).
Absolutely key point to bear in mind is that if you harangue someone about a problem when you’re not in a better position to judge on that particular issue, you’re being an asshat. That’s why I tend to limit my haranguing to matters of (deep breath)...
Economics (in which I have a double-major First, with firsts in Public Finance, Macro, Micro, Quantitative Economic Policy, International Economics, Econometric Theory and Applied Econometrics) and
Econometrics (and the statistical theory underpinning it) for which I took straight Firsts at Masters;
Quantitative analysis of economic policy (and economic modelling generally). which I did for a living for half a decade and taught to undergraduates (3rd year and Honours).
I babble with muted authority on
expectations (having published on, and having been asked to advise my nation’s Treasury on, modelling them in financial markets within macroeconometric models), and
the modelling paradigm in general (having worked for almost a decade at one of the world’s premier economic modelling think tanks, and having dabbled in a [still-incomplete] PhD in stochastic simulation using a computable general-equilibrium model).
And yet I constantly find myself being told things about economics, utility maximisation, agency problems, and so forth, by autodidacts who think persentio ergo rectum is a research methodology.
So why not comment on the post, hmm?
Oh, of course. If you genuinely have good reason to believe you know better than (group) beyond the evidence you have that you are right then it is perfectly reasonable to act on it. But since most of the time you’re probably not in that position, it seems to me that cultivating tolerance is a good idea.