That just means that the sanity waterline isn’t high enough that casinos have no customers—it could be the case that there used to be lots of people who went to casinos, and the waterline has been rising, and now there are fewer people who do.
Deciding to play slot machines is not a choice people make because they think it will net them money, it’s a choice they make because they think it will be fun.
Sure. Probably lotteries are a better example. My guess is that most people edanm talks to about this topic will consider themselves too intelligent to play the lottery.
Perhaps, but I’m trying to convince intelligent people that there are real changes we can introduce that will be adopted by most people, so I’m not sure the lottery fits the bill.
I’m trying to convince intelligent people that there are real changes we can introduce that will be adopted by most people
Well you can start with trying to convince me then. If we can’t get people to stop playing the lottery, what makes you think we can get them to understand and correctly apply Bayes’ Rule? BTW, I hope you don’t have the bottom line already written here.
I believe there are meaningful things people believe/do nowadays that they didn’t 300 years ago (e.g. using the scientific method).
Unfortunately, for all these things, they’re either:
a) adopted only by some people, not the majority.
b) As DanArmak says, adopted only because of “peer pressure” or other social reasons.
Now, that’s not to say CFAR’s mission isn’t still worthwhile—raising the sanity waterline of just certain segments of the population, e.g. the top X% in terms of intelligence, is still of great importance.
But if there really aren’t general “rationality techniques” that have been adopted by most people, if the average person today is no more rational than a person 500 years ago, then I suppose you’re right—my bottom line might need to change to “maybe we can’t reach the general populace”.
Casinos are apparently still making money, so I question the extent to which this has been adopted by the Masses.
That just means that the sanity waterline isn’t high enough that casinos have no customers—it could be the case that there used to be lots of people who went to casinos, and the waterline has been rising, and now there are fewer people who do.
Deciding to play slot machines is not a choice people make because they think it will net them money, it’s a choice they make because they think it will be fun.
I do not think that this is true for the majority of players.
Sure. Probably lotteries are a better example. My guess is that most people edanm talks to about this topic will consider themselves too intelligent to play the lottery.
Perhaps, but I’m trying to convince intelligent people that there are real changes we can introduce that will be adopted by most people, so I’m not sure the lottery fits the bill.
Well you can start with trying to convince me then. If we can’t get people to stop playing the lottery, what makes you think we can get them to understand and correctly apply Bayes’ Rule? BTW, I hope you don’t have the bottom line already written here.
I believe there are meaningful things people believe/do nowadays that they didn’t 300 years ago (e.g. using the scientific method).
Unfortunately, for all these things, they’re either: a) adopted only by some people, not the majority. b) As DanArmak says, adopted only because of “peer pressure” or other social reasons.
Now, that’s not to say CFAR’s mission isn’t still worthwhile—raising the sanity waterline of just certain segments of the population, e.g. the top X% in terms of intelligence, is still of great importance.
But if there really aren’t general “rationality techniques” that have been adopted by most people, if the average person today is no more rational than a person 500 years ago, then I suppose you’re right—my bottom line might need to change to “maybe we can’t reach the general populace”.