No I don’t know that, otherwise I wouldn’t have made the survey. What I know is that there are some members who are very vocal about this issue, but I’m curious about the others. I guess you could also be a bit more respectful.
I don’t think this comment deserves this many downvotes, or for that matter any downvotes at all. Overly vocal members giving a skewed view of the group consensus is a perfectly valid concern.
Had Yvain posted this comment as a response to someone questioning why he included the polyamory question on the LW poll, when everyone knows LW:ers are poly, it would have been upvoted.
Consider Bayes. The prior proportion of people who do not think his conspiracy theory is crazy is 0.06, according to the article he linked to in the OP. (This assumes that your prior is equal to the US population, and since the significant majority of LW is American (I think) this is a reasonable prior. Even if I’m wrong, it’s unlikely to affect the results significantly.) Roughly twenty people replied to the conspiracy theory thread without mentioning that they thought 9/11 was a conspiracy, which seems a highly likely response, if you actually thought that. Browsing through rolands post history, I find a number of users who have explicitly said they disagree with his theory: wedrifid, Eliezer, Mitchell_Porter, lessdazed, WrongBot, Constant, Blueberry, Nisan, mattnewport, Alicorn, simplicio, Jayson_Virissimo, retired_phlebotomist, quanticle, and… well. That’s as far as I care to go. But I think it’s pretty clear that roland had enough Bayesian evidence prior to making his post that virtually everyone here thinks his conspiracy theory is crazy.
Score of a comment depends on its author as well as (or sometimes even more than) its content. It’s hard to overcome this, but nevertheless having a comment similar to the grandparent standing at −7 doesn’t paint a good image of LW voting habits. It can be that people have downvoted it because they suspect roland indeed knows what the opinions of LW:ers [1] are and is trolling, but far more plausible is that most downvoters (of that comment) did vote just because it is a comment written by an unpopular author on an unpopulat topic. Voting on topic is fine with me, but one should do it once for the post and not automatically downvote any subsequent comment of the author.
[1] Is it possible in English to use the Nordic habit of separating abbreviations from suffixes by a colon? It looks useful, but I thought it is permitted only in Swedish and Finnish.
It can be that people have downvoted it because they suspect roland indeed knows what the opinions of LW:ers [1] are and is trolling
Personally I do not think this, but I think he has little excuse for not knowing it by now. If he weren’t so attached to the idea, he would have realized that he already has enough data to work out what the vast majority of people here believe about the issue with high confidence.
I’ve had a hypothesis in my mind: most LWers believe in the official version of 9/11. But knowing that I’m possibly biased and that there is a selection effect(mostly vocal members will express their opinion and they don’t necessarily represent the majority). Also there is some peer pressure in that once the topdog here has proclaimed the believe in the alternative scenario to be insane few may dare to express their opinions publicly.
Whatever the case and the reasons I and others have in their mind regarding the opinion of the average LWer on 9/11 the scientific method has a clear answer: conduct and experiment! In this case a simple survey can deliver the data without much effort and withou having to think much. Why should I trust my biased brain, especially when the debates surrounding this issue have clearly been very emotionally charged?
I think it is a pity though that this survey was downvoted into oblivion and is thus no longer visible so a lot of people who might be willing to participate will not have the opportunity to do so, we will be missing data points and the statistic will be less accurate. Btw, up to now 4% of LWers believe in the “inside job” hypothesis, so there are quite a few.
EDIT:
I forgot another important reason for the survey: having a historical data point of the sanity waterline here at LW. In a few years when more information about 9/11 becomes public it could be helpful to look back and see how LW stood on the issue. When then will have clear data and won’t need to guess hypothetically what people at that time were thinking(this is especially important since according to studies people change their opinion in retrospect).
If my survey results reflect the opinions of LWers(and this can be questioned due to it having been downvoted so much) we have far more believers in the official version than there are in the general US population. The big question is: who is more biased, the US population in general or LW? If LW is wrong on this issue what can be said about all the effort to debias?
In that case, your survey should have asked something along the lines of the following: What do you estimate is the probability that the United States government had a role in the 9/11 attacks? Which can be easily adapted for Prediction Book: Evidence will become public in the next 10 years demonstrating that the US government had a role in the attacks.
But instead you went with a yes-no question and a meaningless “inside job/outside job” dichotomy. The Outside Job category includes a lot of conspiracy theories itself (Israel did it; the Illuminati did it, etc) so you aren’t asking whether people “believe the official story” so much as whether they believe that the US government did it.
In a few years when more information about 9/11 becomes public it could be helpful to look back and see how LW stood on the issue.
I take it from this you expect that in a few years evidence to support your theory will surface. Accordingly, will you update in favor of “no conspiracy” if this evidence fails to surface? Have you updated based on the fact that it has been more than 10 years and no evidence has surfaced?
structural engineers on how likely it is that the buildings would collapse if hit by a plane full of fuel
“politics experts” (ideally historians and constitutional lawyers and experts at international relations and pundits with a good track record—i.e. people that are less likely to be tied to one party or government) about how likely it is that a government would run such a false flag operation
… and of course those surveys would need to be done in a way that avoids selection bias/self-selection, for example show up uninvited at a structural engineering conference and get everybody’s opinion or something.
Why should I trust my biased brain, especially when the debates surrounding this issue have clearly been very emotionally charged?
Does that mean you will change your mind in direction of “outside job” if many LessWrongers tend to answer “outside job”?
Btw, up to now 4% of LWers believe in the “inside job” hypothesis, so there are quite a few.
That could just mean that you answered “inside job”, and 24 people answered “outside job”.
Whatever the case and the reasons I and others have in their mind regarding the opinion of the average LWer on 9/11 the scientific method has a clear answer: conduct and experiment! In this case a simple survey can deliver the data without much effort and withou having to think much.
The scientific method requires more than just having an opt-in online survey with three possible responses of “inside job”, “outside job”, and “no opinion”.
Specifically, to be scientific, there must be a fourth option: “Ron Paul”.
I forgot another important reason for the survey: having a historical data point of the sanity waterline here at LW. In a few years when more information about 9/11 becomes public it could be helpful to look back and see how LW stood on the issue.
Intrade. Longbets. PredictionBook. Or make a bet with me or somone else. I’ve already suggested you do this repeatedly. But repeating this claim and not even bothering to comment on PredictionBook or trying to talk to me or someone else about any form of bet is at best illogical behavior. I haven’t downvoted your comments in this thread, but until you do at least one of the following with someone here I’m going to downvote any more 9/11 conspiracy related comments you make here.
[1] Is it possible in English to use the Nordic habit of separating abbreviations from suffixes by a colon? It looks useful, but I thought it is permitted only in Swedish and Finnish.
Didn’t even notice you did it. It’s not technically right, as JoshuaZ pointed out, but I think my brain just saw it, processed it as being strange, and moved on since it understood anyway.
It can be that people have downvoted it because they suspect roland indeed knows what the opinions of LW:ers [1] are and is trolling, but far more plausible is that most downvoters (of that comment) did vote just because it is a comment written by an unpopular author on an unpopulat topic.
I’m unconvinced either way. I suspect that some degree of unpopularity exists is relevant, but it also likely extends from issues such as those mentioned in my remark above. People have given Roland suggestions about what he needs to do to get people to actually listen and he hasn’t done them, even when those suggestions (like the PredictionBook suggestion) would take minimal effort.
There’s a certain point where on loses patience with actions like this and wonders if someone doesn’t really want to convince everyone else but just wants to feel that that they have the secret knowledge and is smarter than everyone else who just won’t listen.
[1] Is it possible in English to use the Nordic habit of separating abbreviations from suffixes by a colon? It looks useful, but I thought it is permitted only in Swedish and Finnish.
It isn’t common in English. I’ve seen it occasionally, but generally from non-native speakers. I do however think that it is common enough that people will recognize what you are doing and it won’t disrupt readability.
I didn’t downvote and haven’t previously commented on any of your posts as far as I remember, but political subjects have a lot of hurdles to overcome before they become worthwhile for discussion here. There’s a strong tendency for politically charged topics to generate more heat than light, so it’s best to broach such a topic only if it informs an epistemic point for which no other compelling examples exist or if it has powerful and immediate implications for instrumental optimization in some other field. Even then I’d be cautious.
Your survey doesn’t qualify in either respect, yet the bare mention of 9/11 carries a strong political charge by itself, to say nothing of any implications that might be sneaking in. I’d rather not see it here.
You know (virtually) everyone here thinks your conspiracy theories are crazy. Don’t troll.
No I don’t know that, otherwise I wouldn’t have made the survey. What I know is that there are some members who are very vocal about this issue, but I’m curious about the others. I guess you could also be a bit more respectful.
I don’t think this comment deserves this many downvotes, or for that matter any downvotes at all. Overly vocal members giving a skewed view of the group consensus is a perfectly valid concern.
Had Yvain posted this comment as a response to someone questioning why he included the polyamory question on the LW poll, when everyone knows LW:ers are poly, it would have been upvoted.
I disagree. (I am a downvoter.)
Consider Bayes. The prior proportion of people who do not think his conspiracy theory is crazy is 0.06, according to the article he linked to in the OP. (This assumes that your prior is equal to the US population, and since the significant majority of LW is American (I think) this is a reasonable prior. Even if I’m wrong, it’s unlikely to affect the results significantly.) Roughly twenty people replied to the conspiracy theory thread without mentioning that they thought 9/11 was a conspiracy, which seems a highly likely response, if you actually thought that. Browsing through rolands post history, I find a number of users who have explicitly said they disagree with his theory: wedrifid, Eliezer, Mitchell_Porter, lessdazed, WrongBot, Constant, Blueberry, Nisan, mattnewport, Alicorn, simplicio, Jayson_Virissimo, retired_phlebotomist, quanticle, and… well. That’s as far as I care to go. But I think it’s pretty clear that roland had enough Bayesian evidence prior to making his post that virtually everyone here thinks his conspiracy theory is crazy.
Score of a comment depends on its author as well as (or sometimes even more than) its content. It’s hard to overcome this, but nevertheless having a comment similar to the grandparent standing at −7 doesn’t paint a good image of LW voting habits. It can be that people have downvoted it because they suspect roland indeed knows what the opinions of LW:ers [1] are and is trolling, but far more plausible is that most downvoters (of that comment) did vote just because it is a comment written by an unpopular author on an unpopulat topic. Voting on topic is fine with me, but one should do it once for the post and not automatically downvote any subsequent comment of the author.
[1] Is it possible in English to use the Nordic habit of separating abbreviations from suffixes by a colon? It looks useful, but I thought it is permitted only in Swedish and Finnish.
Personally I do not think this, but I think he has little excuse for not knowing it by now. If he weren’t so attached to the idea, he would have realized that he already has enough data to work out what the vast majority of people here believe about the issue with high confidence.
I’ve had a hypothesis in my mind: most LWers believe in the official version of 9/11. But knowing that I’m possibly biased and that there is a selection effect(mostly vocal members will express their opinion and they don’t necessarily represent the majority). Also there is some peer pressure in that once the topdog here has proclaimed the believe in the alternative scenario to be insane few may dare to express their opinions publicly.
Whatever the case and the reasons I and others have in their mind regarding the opinion of the average LWer on 9/11 the scientific method has a clear answer: conduct and experiment! In this case a simple survey can deliver the data without much effort and withou having to think much. Why should I trust my biased brain, especially when the debates surrounding this issue have clearly been very emotionally charged?
I think it is a pity though that this survey was downvoted into oblivion and is thus no longer visible so a lot of people who might be willing to participate will not have the opportunity to do so, we will be missing data points and the statistic will be less accurate. Btw, up to now 4% of LWers believe in the “inside job” hypothesis, so there are quite a few.
EDIT:
I forgot another important reason for the survey: having a historical data point of the sanity waterline here at LW. In a few years when more information about 9/11 becomes public it could be helpful to look back and see how LW stood on the issue. When then will have clear data and won’t need to guess hypothetically what people at that time were thinking(this is especially important since according to studies people change their opinion in retrospect).
If my survey results reflect the opinions of LWers(and this can be questioned due to it having been downvoted so much) we have far more believers in the official version than there are in the general US population. The big question is: who is more biased, the US population in general or LW? If LW is wrong on this issue what can be said about all the effort to debias?
In that case, your survey should have asked something along the lines of the following: What do you estimate is the probability that the United States government had a role in the 9/11 attacks? Which can be easily adapted for Prediction Book: Evidence will become public in the next 10 years demonstrating that the US government had a role in the attacks.
But instead you went with a yes-no question and a meaningless “inside job/outside job” dichotomy. The Outside Job category includes a lot of conspiracy theories itself (Israel did it; the Illuminati did it, etc) so you aren’t asking whether people “believe the official story” so much as whether they believe that the US government did it.
I take it from this you expect that in a few years evidence to support your theory will surface. Accordingly, will you update in favor of “no conspiracy” if this evidence fails to surface? Have you updated based on the fact that it has been more than 10 years and no evidence has surfaced?
A better survey would be something like:
structural engineers on how likely it is that the buildings would collapse if hit by a plane full of fuel
“politics experts” (ideally historians and constitutional lawyers and experts at international relations and pundits with a good track record—i.e. people that are less likely to be tied to one party or government) about how likely it is that a government would run such a false flag operation
… and of course those surveys would need to be done in a way that avoids selection bias/self-selection, for example show up uninvited at a structural engineering conference and get everybody’s opinion or something.
Does that mean you will change your mind in direction of “outside job” if many LessWrongers tend to answer “outside job”?
That could just mean that you answered “inside job”, and 24 people answered “outside job”.
I’m a bit surprised that enough people have bothered taking the survey for 4% to be a possible figure.
The scientific method requires more than just having an opt-in online survey with three possible responses of “inside job”, “outside job”, and “no opinion”.
Specifically, to be scientific, there must be a fourth option: “Ron Paul”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QehZjjwb7-I
Intrade. Longbets. PredictionBook. Or make a bet with me or somone else. I’ve already suggested you do this repeatedly. But repeating this claim and not even bothering to comment on PredictionBook or trying to talk to me or someone else about any form of bet is at best illogical behavior. I haven’t downvoted your comments in this thread, but until you do at least one of the following with someone here I’m going to downvote any more 9/11 conspiracy related comments you make here.
So you are the guy making the rules and running the show now? :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QehZjjwb7-I
Didn’t even notice you did it. It’s not technically right, as JoshuaZ pointed out, but I think my brain just saw it, processed it as being strange, and moved on since it understood anyway.
Kaj did it first. I wanted to know whether he did it intentionally, or whether it was a subconscious code switch.
Oh, I didn’t realize I did that.
Ah. Didn’t notice that either...
I’m unconvinced either way. I suspect that some degree of unpopularity exists is relevant, but it also likely extends from issues such as those mentioned in my remark above. People have given Roland suggestions about what he needs to do to get people to actually listen and he hasn’t done them, even when those suggestions (like the PredictionBook suggestion) would take minimal effort.
There’s a certain point where on loses patience with actions like this and wonders if someone doesn’t really want to convince everyone else but just wants to feel that that they have the secret knowledge and is smarter than everyone else who just won’t listen.
It isn’t common in English. I’ve seen it occasionally, but generally from non-native speakers. I do however think that it is common enough that people will recognize what you are doing and it won’t disrupt readability.
I didn’t downvote and haven’t previously commented on any of your posts as far as I remember, but political subjects have a lot of hurdles to overcome before they become worthwhile for discussion here. There’s a strong tendency for politically charged topics to generate more heat than light, so it’s best to broach such a topic only if it informs an epistemic point for which no other compelling examples exist or if it has powerful and immediate implications for instrumental optimization in some other field. Even then I’d be cautious.
Your survey doesn’t qualify in either respect, yet the bare mention of 9/11 carries a strong political charge by itself, to say nothing of any implications that might be sneaking in. I’d rather not see it here.