I certainly agree. Most of those I instantly believed, and I had a bit of doubt for the one about southern blacks preferring southern to northern white officers (or maybe that is belief as attire, or hindsight bias) but as you said it is crazy that the opposite of what is true is believable when told it is correct.
EngineerofScience
Karma: 16
So is there ever a time where you can use absence of evidence alone to disprove a theory, or do you always need other evidence as well? Because is some cases absence of evidence clearly does not disprove a theory, such as when quantum physics was first being discovered, there was not a lot of evidence for it, but can the inverse ever be true will lack of evidence alone proves the theory is false?
What is a Fermi Estimate? If you could provide a link to an article talking about that I would be thankful.
I agree. It is bad to do what scams say, even if you think that you can trick the scammer. Plus, they will put you on a “vulnerable” list and you will get more scams.
I’m not sure how effective this is considering most people who would see this are rationalists and people like to think good of themselves.
I am not so sure that rationalists don’t win, but rather that “winning”(ie. starting a company, being a celebrity, etc.) is rare enough and that few people are rationalists that people that win tend not to be rationalists because being a rationalist is rare enough that very few people that win are rationalists, even if each rationalist has a better chance of winning.
I think this is a really good idea. I have wished I could “blink” and then be in the future but still have been doing work during that time, and this is just the way to do that. I am trying to to this because it is a really great idea.
If all of those asteroids are owned by one company, then they can sell the metal of the asteroids for as much as it was before because they would be the only people with that much metal, having something similar to a monopoly. They would have the choice of lowering the value of the metals, because if they only made $10/ton. of metal and they sold 1 million tons, then they make ten million dollars. However, if a different company with ten tons of metal making $10/ton. of metal would make one hundred dollars, perhaps not be able to pay their workers, and go out of business. That would reduce competition for the company that caught the asteroid. However, if the company sold them for the same prices long-term they could make trillions of dollars.
This is my blurb.
Asteroids pose a risk towards life on earth. An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. They pose enough threat that [U.S. and Russia are working together to hunt down asteroids](https://newsela.com/articles/asteroid-crowdsource/id/3960/). In fact, [an asteroid landed in Russia in February 2013 and was 65-feet wide with the force of 500,000 tons of TNT](https://newsela.com/articles/asteroid-crowdsource/id/3960/). However, asteroids could be very valuable to us.If caught, asteroids could be worth one-trillion dollars! They contain more metals than we have ever mined ever! In space, the value of asteroids could be more because of one substance: water. We could potentially separate the water into hydrogen and then use the hydrogen as fuel. This is very money saving because it takes a lot of fuel to move places because if you take fuel to move farther that fuel adds weight so you have to add fuel to carry that fuel and add fuel to carry that fuel… If we make more fuel in space then we get out of that loop. Asteroids pose a potential value to earn lots of money and send space ships farther out than we have before but also a threat of killing thousands.
I don’t know the exact numbers, nor how carefully that was found out. The point is that asteroids contain mor metals than we ever mined ever and that adds up to be a lot of money.
No. In this case, game theory says that if both people are using the same logic and they know that, then what I showed above is correct: cooperating is the best choice. However, that is not always the case in reality.
Also, can I write in my asteroid essay the potential helpfullness of asteroids? We belive that one asteroid(just one!) could be worth $1,000,000,000,000. In other words, catching one asteroid could be worth one-trillion dollars. Could I mention that in my hundred word blurb?
I will do asteroids.
I would say… defect! If all the computer cares about is sorting pebbles, then they will cooperate, because both results under cooperate have more paperclips. This gives an oppurtunity to defect and get a result of (d,c) which is our favorite result.
Just wondering, where will the donated money actually go? An important thing to think about.
I can probably write one of the hundred word descriptions. I also could probably make an image as well.
I see your point. According to game theory you should cooperate( as I stated above). However, I will show what my thinking would be in reality...
If I cooperate, they could to, and if that happened we would at up at a payoff of 12,12. However, if they defect then I will loose points.
If I defect, I would have a chance of getting a payoff of 5,0 or a payoff of 2,2. This is the only way to get more than 12 points, and the only way to be give at least two points every time.
Then, you defect every time. If your oppponent also defects every time, you end up at the pareato boundry with a total payoff of 8,8.
Both people who are identical and know they are identical cooperate.
I see your point, but according to game theory in this scenario you assume that your opponent will make the same move as you will, because if both of you are in the same situation then assuming you both are using “perfect” logic then you will reach the same decision.
I would say that according to rationality and game theory cooperating is the best choice. I will show my logic as if both people were thing the same thing.
If I defect, than they will too, and that will give a result of 2,2
If I cooperate, than they will too, and that will give a result of 3,3
I could defect and hope they use the logic above and get a gain of 5,0 but if they use this logic too, then we end up back at the nash equilibrium of getting a result of 2,2.
If I cooperate then I am giving the opponent an oppurtunity to defect but if both people are using this logic than I should cooperate and will end up at the pareto boundry and end up with a result of 3,3 but it is unrealistic to try to achieve a better score so I should just cooperate
And so, both people cooperate.
One thing I have noticed relating to this in school is that on tests sometimes I put down an answer on a quiz that I know is wrong because the teacher will give me points if I put that. For example, on a Physical Education quiz the teacher briefly talked about how sugar affects the human body. One of the questions was multiple choice and it said “Sugar is a...” and I selected carbohydrate even though I knew it was wrong because that is what we were taught.