That is a fair point. I would assume that it is an issue that will have a noticeble difference on those involved, but not a catastrophic one if lost (no apocalypse, for example).
JDM
Karma: 51
If it were something too open to debate, it would take away from the point.
The point is as stated. There is a non-zero probability it will happen, so you shouldn’t use “certain”, but any reasonable person will act on the belief it isn’t going to happen.
If he used religion, which is also extremely unlikely to be correct, it would distract from the point.
There is a difference between a “tribe system” as mentioned by yourself and one person winning by submitting 1000 entries. The goal as I understand it is simply to maximize your score by whatever means possible, not accurately guess your opponents intentions.
I think the statement “the end doesn’t justify the means” is somewhat silly in it’s own right. While it would typically be argued in the sense that killing someone to improve someone else’s life is not OK, for example, would the person dying not be equally a part of the end as the other’s life improving? It seems more likely to result in double counting or a similar fallacy to try to separate an action into end and means in the first place, when everything already has an impact on the end in some way.
That said, the understood meaning is not the same as its literal value, and the meaning closer to how it is understood of “consider all the consequences of your actions” does have value.
It is very possible I don’t understand this properly, but assuming you have knowledge of what strength of evidence is possible, could you start at 0.5 and consider strong arguments (relative to possible strength) as increasing the possibility and weak arguments as decreasing the possibility instead? With each piece of evidence you could increase the point at which weak arguments are viewed as having a positive effect, so numerous weak arguments could still add up to a decently high probability of the box containing the diamond.
For example, if arguments are rated in strength from 0 to 1, and most arguments would not be stronger than .5, my approach would be as follows for each piece of evidence:
Piece 1: Probability += (strength-.25)
Piece 2: probability += (strength-.22)
Piece 3: probability += (strength-.20)
etc.
I am of course oversimplifying the math, and looking at how you are approaching stoppage, perhaps this isn’t actually effectively much different from your approach. But this approach is more intuitive to me than considering stopping a separate event on its own. If he is struck by lightning, as mentioned several times throughout this discussion, it is hard to view this in the same light as if he had stopped on his own as an independent event, but I am not sure the difference is enough that the probability of the diamond being in the box should be substantially different in the two cases.
Can someone clear up what issues there are with my approach? It makes more sense to me and if it is wrong, I would like to know where.
The first definition from google—Be successful or victorious in (a contest or conflict).
This is no different than I or most people would define it, and I don’t think it contradicts with how I used it.
I think you’re defining “winning” too strictly. Sometimes a minor loss is still a win, if the alternative was a large one.
You’re on the wrong site to sell that voodoo shit.
I think your point that she took a lot of flak for it is evidence for the original point. The only other reasonable responses to that could have been changing her mind on the spot, or disputing the data, and neither of those responses would have brought similar backlash on her. Conceding weak points to your arguments in politics is often looked upon as a weakness when it shouldn’t be.
Whether religion was ultimately the “cause of the crusades” is debatable, but it was the reason used to sell it to the masses. Surely a similar scenario could occur in the “blue vs green” debate outlined above.
Also keep in mind that you’re going to have to deal with assholes once you hit the real world. While protecting children from them at young ages is an idealistic goal, at some level you will have to learn to face them. In a lot of less than extreme circumstances, you can learn and improve strategies to handle them.
Irrelevant. If there is any possible explanation where he provides the support without that specific deal, it is automatically less likely that both happen, even if the most likely scenario (90%+) of supporting unwed mothers is given said deal. If it is the only possibility, the scenarios would be equally likely; the conjunction could still not possibly be more likely.
I’m not trying to imply that bullying is good by any means. I also don’t think it is nearly as terrible as it is portrayed to be. It is extremely dramatized by the media because of the few instances where it is extreme and the bullied takes extreme action. In a lot of cases “bullying” is minor in nature and not significantly different than other “initiation rites” at higher ages. I am all for teachers doing their best to prevent bullying, but some minor things should be let go.
As for homeschooling, for a parent considering it I would add the pro that you can increase the pace of the cirriculum to keep your child from getting bored by mindless repetition. Again from personal experience, I could have learned several classes (particularly math) much faster than it is taught in a public school environment, and as a result I didn’t do homework (I would get 70′s in classes counting homework as 30%) because I didn’t think I was learning anything. So being able to pace classes efficiently would be a significant pro for homeschooling.
I would once more emphasize the positives of social interaction, and find a way, whether through sports, or preferably a way involving both sexes, to make sure your child is getting that interaction. My point on bullying isn’t that I think it’s a net positive, just that the negatives aren’t as extreme as portrayed in the media and aren’t enough to seriously cut into the benefits of the socialization.
I’m not disputing the validity of the thought process. I don’t think the example was well chosen, however. A dust speck, ignoring externalities, doesn’t affect anything. Using even a pinprick would have made the example far better.
It’s an extremely hypothetical situation. However, why should it, ignoring externalities as the problem required, be measured at any disutility? That dust speck has no impact on my life in any way, other than making me blink. No pain is involved.
I would simply argue that a dust speck has 0 disutility.
Absolutely. That is the reason for the speculation I provided in the second paragraph. Innate ability is also a large factor, and I think, while improving your charisma is useful for anyone, some intelligent people, primarily those without as much natural ability, pass this up as “not of value”.
The correlation between IQ and leadership is absolutely there, because some baseline IQ is a prerequisite for reasonable leadership ability. You can’t lead without basic logic abilities or some ability to see patterns, and I would consider leadership and charisma as aspects of intelligence. I made that comment elsewhere in reply to a different comment. However, neither is easy to measure objectively, and these abilities are not measured on an IQ test. It is very possible to have a genius-level IQ and be awful with people.
I would possibly even go farther. I would guess that high IQ people are likely to be closer to the extrema of leadership skills than the general population. Intelligent people who are naturally good with people can apply their intelligence to improving their people skills, and bring themselves closer to the higher extreme. Meanwhile, those closer to the lower extreme are probably more likely than the average person to throw themselves into projects they are good at and decide social interactions are a waste of their time.
That second paragraph is entirely speculation and I have no data to back it up, however, I think the point that while there is some correlation, it is not strong, and that more data would be useful in the original study proposed, is valid.
Causation probably runs both ways on this one. There is a lot of evidence that richer and more-respected people are happier and healthier. Various explanations have been tried to explain this, including the explanation that health causes career success.
What about a third factor being the crucial decider in both, such the ability to handle/minimize stress levels? As you rise nearer to the top, stress increases. Those most able to adapt to it continue to rise, because high stress levels have a negative effect on brain function, and eventually the people who can’t handle the stress are forced to fold. Stress also weakens the immune system and has other negative effects on health.
Logically it should hold that being able to effectively decrease stress would maximize both your chance to rise to the top and your health.
I would assume that both groups have similar influence, but you can hand select ten near the most influential of the group you are convincing.
I would also assume those converted to a rational view would be relatively difficult to change back, while those swayed would be subject to the same biases you used to sway them in the first place.
Perhaps this was a foolish question, but even having my question picked apart is providing more for me to think about.