Interesting experience: I attempted to read the sequences ~10 years ago but kept getting sidetracked and put out of order by clicking all the links. This time, I decided to try again, but forced myself to read each post in order.
All this to say that I read this post chronologically close to after reading “your strength as a rationalist”. I can’t evaluate how relevant this fact is, but I had alarm bells ringing in my head when reading the statements 3, 4, and 5.
4 especially was so incoherent to my model that I immediately thought there had to be a trick.
Basically, my model:
could argue either side for 1 with equal probability
gave a >70% probability to 2
would have predicted <20% for 3
<5% for 4
<30% for 5
I’m not certain of how I did the first time I read this post, but I’m quite certain I didn’t do as well. So I’m wondering if I’ve gotten stronger or if it’s due to the reading order.
Interesting experience: I attempted to read the sequences ~10 years ago but kept getting sidetracked and put out of order by clicking all the links. This time, I decided to try again, but forced myself to read each post in order. All this to say that I read this post chronologically close to after reading “your strength as a rationalist”. I can’t evaluate how relevant this fact is, but I had alarm bells ringing in my head when reading the statements 3, 4, and 5. 4 especially was so incoherent to my model that I immediately thought there had to be a trick. Basically, my model:
could argue either side for 1 with equal probability
gave a >70% probability to 2
would have predicted <20% for 3
<5% for 4
<30% for 5
I’m not certain of how I did the first time I read this post, but I’m quite certain I didn’t do as well. So I’m wondering if I’ve gotten stronger or if it’s due to the reading order.