At this moment, the post has 25 karma, which is not bad.
From my perspective, positive karma is good, negative karma is bad, but 4x higher karma doesn’t necessarily mean 4x better—it could also mean that more people noticed it, more people were interested, it was short to read so more people voted, etc.
So I think that partially you are overthinking it, and partially you could have made the introduction shorter (basically to reduce the number of lines someone must read before they decide that they like it).
The off-putting part about betting to me was the non-objective measure of meditative engagement. Gwern’s n-back test was better for being objective and precise.
Hm, interesting. I think there’s more α in investigating meditative performance, and thought it’d be not as bad through subjectivity because I randomize & blind. But I get why one would be skeptical of that.
I do test for a bunch of other stuff though, e.g. flashcard performance (more objective I think?), which was surprisingly unmoved in my past two experiments. But I don’t resolve the markets based on that. I very briefly considered putting up markets on every affected variable and every combination of substance, but then decided that nobody was going to forecast that.
At this moment, the post has 25 karma, which is not bad.
From my perspective, positive karma is good, negative karma is bad, but 4x higher karma doesn’t necessarily mean 4x better—it could also mean that more people noticed it, more people were interested, it was short to read so more people voted, etc.
So I think that partially you are overthinking it, and partially you could have made the introduction shorter (basically to reduce the number of lines someone must read before they decide that they like it).
Yeah, when I posted the first comment in here, I think it had 14?
I was maybe just overly optimistic about the amount of trading that’d happen on the markets.
The off-putting part about betting to me was the non-objective measure of meditative engagement. Gwern’s n-back test was better for being objective and precise.
Hm, interesting. I think there’s more α in investigating meditative performance, and thought it’d be not as bad through subjectivity because I randomize & blind. But I get why one would be skeptical of that.
I do test for a bunch of other stuff though, e.g. flashcard performance (more objective I think?), which was surprisingly unmoved in my past two experiments. But I don’t resolve the markets based on that. I very briefly considered putting up markets on every affected variable and every combination of substance, but then decided that nobody was going to forecast that.