ChristianKl
Karma: 16,252
NewTop
Purple:
Logos are also part of identity and can be important to signal belonging. Band T-Shirts. Logos of Organizations.
Green:
If you go in a formal suit to an informal event with people in green you are unlikely to be accepted the same way as you would if you dress like the other people at the event. Ingroup/outgroup thinking is still part of green spiral-dynamics.
What brands? Is there a difference between more expensive items and less expensive items that makes it worth paying for more expensive ones?
What benefit do I get when I don’t buy the Uniqlo one for 30€ but pay more?
One way the stock price matters for executives is that their bonuses are linked to the stock price.
If you start a megaproject you could link executive bonuses on the project to the probability on the Augur market.
Linking it to bonuses would also automatically push some liquidity into the market.
Your post didn’t contain any advice on belts. Do you have any?
Can you taboo high-end-venues-clientele?
You do you measure whether or not your style gets worse?
How universal do you think the advice you give her is? Is it applicable in the US the same way as in Europe?
Would the advice have been correct ago 10 years ago? Would you expect it to be correct 10 years in the future?
The voodoo paper starts by noting that the social neuroscience papers regularly report values that are higher then the theoretical maximum.
I find a defense of neuroscience against the Voodoo paper that ignores that the charge of the Voodoo paper that the results of the claimed social neuroscience papers achieve impossible results (you could call them paranormal), to be no good defense.
Whether or not it causes entirely spurious correlations to be reported depends on the degrees of freedom that models have. If you have a dataset with 200 patients and 2000 degrees of freedom in your mathematical model. The neuroscience folks often use statistical techniques where there’s no mathematically sound method to assess the degrees of freedom. Frequently, they run some simulated data through the model to eyeball the amount of the problem, but there are no mathematical guarantees that this will find every case when the degrees of freedom are two high.
Even if you grant it’s only modest overstating. Scientists are generally not expected to modestly overstate their results but are supposed to remove systematic effects that make them overstate their results.
Even if you think that there’s some value in predicting training data, they could still run a second test where they split their data into two a trainings data pile and an evaluation pile and run their model again and report the results. It’s not much work as they don’t need to create a new model. It’s 4 lines of R (maybe even less if you write it concisely).
Cognitive neuroscience is generally considered a subfield of cognitive psychology, and cognitive psychology is the part of psychology whose results have so far replicated the best.
I don’t think it makes any sense to see cognitive neuroscience as a subject of cognitive psychology. In cognitive psychology scientists do well-controlled experiments. In cognitive neuroscience many people try to predict the trainings data of their models. The epistemic hygiene of the fields are very different.
I agree that some notion of past fruitfulness and further promise is important. It’s however hard to judge fruitfulness from the outside as a lot of the progress within a new paradigm might not be intelligible in the old paradigms.
If you would have asked chiropractors in the 20th century whether they made theoretical progress, I would guess that you would get answer about how their theory progressed. If you however asked any mainstream medicine academic you would likely get the answer that they didn’t produce anything useful.
The standard peer review is a heavily standardized process that makes specific assumptions about the shape of knowledge.
The ontology of special relations is something that matters for science but I can have that discussion Github. Github does provide for a way of “peer-review” but it’s very different then the way traditional scientific papers work.
When I look at that discussion, it’s also funny that both the person I’m speaking with and I have both studied bioinformatics.
Bioinformatics as a field managed to share a lot of knowledge openly through ways besides scientific papers. It wouldn’t be surprising to me when the DSM gets one day replaced by a well developed ontology created with a more bioinformatical paradigm.
The database that comes out of the money from Zuckerberg will also be likely more scientifically valuable then any classical academic papers written about it.
Yes, there’s math.
I asked this question a while ago at statistics.SE
Tedlock uses the Briers score both in his earlier research and in the good judgement project.
http://faculty.engr.utexas.edu/bickel/Papers/QSL_Comparison.pdf is also worth reading
Given that the OP counts the Good Judgment project as part of the movement I think that certainly qualifies.
It’s my understanding that while the Good Judgment project made progress on the question of how to think about the right probability, we still lack ways for people to integrate the making of regular forecasts into their personal and professional lives.
Are emotions and any part of our emotional responses part or rationality?
Our community uses the word rationality in a way where they are included. See http://www.rationality.org/resources/updates/2013/3-ways-cfar-has-changed-my-perspective-on-rationality
Chiropractics was long considered to be pseudo-medicine because it rests on the perceptive ability of it’s practioners. Yet, according to Cochrane we now know that their interventions have effects that are comparable to our mainstream treatments for backpain.
The useless paradigm of domestic science had a lot of esteem in the 20th centure while chiropratics had none. Given that it took this long to settle simply question of whether chiropratical intevention works for backpain, I think it’s very hard to say for most alternative medicine approaches that have seen a lot less research what effects they have and could be demonstrated if you fund them as a serious paradigm.
In medicine most of the journals endorse the CONSORT guidelines yet their peer-review processes don’t make sure that the clear quality standards of the CONSORT guidelines are followed in a majority of published papers.
Blinding peer-review doesn’t help at all with encourages paradigm violating papers. Instead of succeding at forcing the quality standards they endorse on the papers they publish, mainstream journals do succeed at not publishing any papers that violate the mainsteam paradigm.
What’s feasible and what isn’t is hard to say beforehand. If you take molecular biology the mainstream considered their goal at the beginning unfeaseable and it took a while till there was actually technology that made it feasible to know the shape of proteins and other biomoleculs.
There’s an interview with Sydney Brenner who was one of the fathers of molecular biology who says that the pradigmn likely wouldn’t have gotten support in the current academic climate.
My sense is that many answers so far come more from a place of sitting on the sidelines or having waded in a bit, found rationality not obviously helpful in the first place.
That seems for me a strange result from going through the list of people who answered. All have >1000 karma on LessWrong. Most (all expect Elo) are more then 6 years on LessWrong.
It would surprise me if any of the people have spent less then 100 hours learning/thinking about how to make rationality work.
I myself spent years thinking about how to make calibration work. I tested multiple systems created by LessWrongers. That engagement with the topic lead me to an answer of how I think medicine could be revolutionized. But I’m still lacking a way to make it actually practical for my daily life.
I think “How to Measure Anything” is a useful book to get a sense of how professional rationality might actually look [...] But they do need at least some people who are good at that (and they need other people to listen to them, and a CEO or hiring specialist who can identify such people).
YCombinator tells their startups to talk to their user and do things that don’t scale instead of hiring a professional rationalist to help them navigate uncertainty. To me that doesn’t look like it’s changing.
It’s a bit ridiculous to treat the problem of what rationality actually is as solved and hold convictions that we are going to have rationality specialists.
Given the way the answer feature goes, I think it would make more sense to have every single point as a separate answer to allow people to vote on them.
already in SSR he does speak of a scientist having an initial hunch suggesting a given idea is promising.
There are certainly many scientists who have hunches that their attempts at revolutionizing science are promising. Most of them however fail.
Is there a way to integrate probability based forecasting into the daily life of the average person that’s clearly beneficial for them?
I don’t think we are yet at that point where I can clearly say, that we are there. I think we would need new software to do this well.
What distinguishes a BonneGueule light blue popeline shirt from the average light blue popeline shirt? Can you explain how the shirt differs and how the additional value gets created?