This hypothesis does not explain why people tend to fall in love with opposite sex, while simulating brains more similar to your own should be easier.
Dr. Jamchie
I think Conjunction Fallacy is not actually a fallacy.
Lets take water heater problem for example, which goes like this:
“Person X fixed my water heater. Which is more likely—A) he is mathematician or B) he is plumber AND mathematician?”
“A” answer is correct as P(A) >= P(A and B).
But lets rephrase the question:
“Which is more likely—A) he is a person randomly selected from mathematicians group or B) he is a person randomly selected from mathematicians who are also plumbers group?”
Now which one is correct?
Still A, obviously, because there are way more mathematicians than mathematicians who are also plumbers. Nothing about your rephrasing nullifies the fact of the vastly differing base rates.
Let me give you an analogy: There are two bags of balls. 1st have 1000000 white balls and 10 black balls. 2nd have 5 black balls and no white balls. Bob took a ball from one of the bags and it was black. Which bag he took it from? There are more black balls in first bag, than in the second. As there are more mathematicians, who can fix water heater, that mathematicians who are plumbers. Still the correct answer would be 2nd bag obviously.
Did you have in mind the additional premise that only plumbers can fix toilets?
No, just that plumber have much higher probability of doing so.
″ In your analogy, no ball that is in the second bag is also in the first bag. However, all mathematician-plumbers are also mathematicians. ”
Most of balls in first bag are in fact not plumbers, as in real life, but whose who are—they are in the bag also. We could number the balls, and first 5 of 10 black balls in first bag would have same numbers as 5 balls in second bag.
Yes, but you see now, with enought details added, second question doesn`t seem to make a lot of sense. “Which” in the question implies that Bob is just on one of the lists, but most likely he isn’t. That being said, natural language does not correspond 1:1 to math or statistics. Some ambiguities are expected and a lot of sentences are up for interpretation. Now who is to say that second question you prodived is the correct way to interpret the original problem, and first one is not? First is at least coherent, while second is condradicting itself.
To be honest, I like all of your new definitions better that conventional ones.
They are more alligned with the actual wrongness of an act.
I feel it strange that when you open Daily posts, you see something like 5 days worth of posts and then you need to click “show more days” button. In facebook I don`t need to click anything if I want to scroll down to post 5 years old. I think.
I just came up with this name for the thing I think I am seeing here—it’s artificial morality. It is when you feel some things are moral and some are not, then you come up with a theory on why some things are moral and others are not, then you apply that theory to come up with other things that
should
feel moral/immoral and then you try to impose theseshould
feelings to others even though there might not be a single person on earth who actaully feels that.
Not directly related to topic, but I was interested: does this identification of oneself with either rider or elephant, somehow correlates to MBTI personality types?
I have just recently read Meditations on Moloch and I agree it is fascinating post, but also entirely misses the point. Competition does not make you sacrifice your values, that’s how these values came to existence in the first place. There was analogy with rats who came to live in the island and used their spare time to do art, but stopped when resources had depleted. That`s not how story goes. When rats first came to island they did not care about art or any such nonsense, all they did was eat and fuck all day and everyone was happy. But one day, there was no more food to continue to just do that. Only then some rats started to be creative. Turns out if you paint your picture with bigger muscles than you actually have, and you put it on rats-tinder, you get to mate more than if you just posted your real picture. That’s how art came to exist in rats island.
Each agent is given an opportunity to sacrifice something important to them in order to gain competitive advantage over the other agents.
Yes, and what I am asking is why those things are important fot them in the first place? Probably because having these things important gave those agents competetive advantage. Love your children? Thats Moloch wants you to replicate your stomach so you could eat mode baby elephants, than you alone could. You only sacrifice those things that Molach himself has given you.
I see a risk with this approach, that author will have oportunity to hide comments, that does not agree with his opinion. This might kill some discussions in favor of author.
- 3 Mar 2018 17:40 UTC; 22 points) 's comment on Ms. Blue, meet Mr. Green by (
We might want to preseve those, but can we? By definition we will be outcompeted by those who do not.
So it seems you only eat proceeded food and basically don’t walk. How is that affecting your weight?
- 3 Mar 2018 17:40 UTC; 22 points) 's comment on Ms. Blue, meet Mr. Green by (
Let me put it this way—if this is a problem, you would probably want to solve it? Generally if you want to solve a problem you would prefer it to not have existed in the first place? If yes then you would also not have any of the values you want to save. Considering this, does Moloch still qualifies as a problem?
- 3 Mar 2018 17:40 UTC; 22 points) 's comment on Ms. Blue, meet Mr. Green by (
So to again summarise this whole argument: Moloch is a problem, that made you exist and is impossible to solve by definition. So what are you going to do about it? (I suggest trying to answer this to your self at first, only then to me)
You should appreciate rude if cutting time is a priority in your life.
In my experience, which is not this site and probably not a culture you are from, putting some aggresion is essential part to even start a discussion. I mean proper discussion, which makes people think hard and which makes people to aggree on important things. Everything else is just small talk.
Could you perhaps elaborate on what is this understanding of the world you hold?