LA has a tradition of guerrilla freeway sign enhancements as a result of similar authority non-responsiveness. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2015/02/11/guerrilla_public_service_on_99_invisible_richard_ankrom_replaced_a_los_angeles.html
Jonathan_Graehl
Karma: 2,752
In effect, you’re encouraging rationalist posers to signal agreement with you on these signature issues. By talking about the signal and its interpretation, you weaken it.
No man has wit enough to reason with a fool.
Proyas (fictional character—author: R. Scott Bakker)
Whenever I hear an unsupported vote against conventional wisdom on a web forum, e.g. “adult-preteen intercourse isn’t very harmful”, I don’t update my view much. Absent a well-argued case for the unconventional position, I assume that such beliefs reflect some strong self-interested bias (sufficient to overcome strong societal pressure) and not fearless rational investigation—to say nothing of trolls.
I also strongly discount unreasoned votes in favor of the consensus, especially on issues subject to strong conformity pressure.
It seems that this survey is not intended to solicit arguments for particular controversial anthropological or political beliefs. Does the site accept them at all? I’d expect not, except as case studies for some general claim, due to the risk of attracting cranks.
That Iceland’s currently 1% infected as of now doesn’t say anything about how infected it would be after a few weeks of no-special-controls measures (comparable to folks’ behavior in a regular flu season). This is the beginning of this virus’s worldwide course. It’s dishonest to compare a snapshot now with the accumulated total of a whole flu sason.
Completely and clinically selfish, without apology. “I don’t blame her” but no claim that her pain ever weighed upon you. Matter of fact and remorseless in admitting to having behaved foolishly (waiting too long to experiment). Bragging.
I wonder if anyone would admit to downvoting for those reasons. The reasons given in comments are more Spock-worthy.
I enjoyed it. Writing that risks such offense parses as honest to me. My reading between the lines fleshes you out quite sympathetically.
The frequency of first letter of last names in the U.S. suggests your split is probably correct.
I wonder why the number of downvotes is hidden.
Journal ‘Basic and Applied Psychology’ bans p<0.05 and 95% confidence intervals
If the story is true, she’s at least exceptional in knowing how to ask and what to ask for. I expect her to be top-10% by my ranking.
It’s not disgusting that she’s begging for a chance at life. I’d do the same, even knowing that I was effectively asking people to spend less on Kenyans. Perhaps you mean it’s disgusting that her asking might work?
Imputing racism is overdone. Even if you want to slap some sense into people, please don’t go there (yes, you said “even if”, but you also chose Kenya).
“bitch”. I don’t care, but you already sufficiently signaled that you care very much that others don’t agree with you.
How do I know that supporting SI doesn’t end up merely funding a bunch of movement-building leading to no real progress?
It seems to me that the premise of funding SI is that people smarter (or more appropriately specialized) than you will then be able to make discoveries that otherwise would be underfunded or wrongly-purposed.
I think the (friendly or not) AI problem is hard. So it seems natural for people to settle for movement-building or other support when they get stuck.
That said, some of the collateral output to date has been enjoyable.
I agree that known biases can be explained by curves like those, plus the choice of a “frame”. But how do we know we’re not overfitting?
In other words: does prospect theory pay rent?
I’d want to at least see that we’re identifying some real differences between people when we fit their curves from a bunch of measurements of their behavior—I’d expect their personally fit model to describe their (held-out from fitting) future actions better than one fit over the whole population, etc.
It seems like the additional degree of freedom “well, it depends on how they chose their frame in this instance” needs to be nailed down as part of testing the model’s fit on future actions.
Solid and unsurprising.
Write important things larger.
She Blinded Me With Science
“disfluency” research
This is brilliant. How many cents a day will it take to feed him? :)
Congrats on the accomplishments. Leaving aside the rest, I like the prompt: why don’t people wirehead? Realistically, they’re cautious due to having but one brain and a low visibility into what they’d become. A digital-copyable agent would, if curious about what slightly different versions of themselves would do, not hesitate to simulate one in a controlled environment.
Generally I would tweak my brain if it would reliably give me the kind of actions I’d now approve of, while providing at worst the same sort of subjective state as I’d have if managing the same results without the intervention. I wouldn’t care if the center of my actions was different as long as the things I value today were bettered.
Anyway, it’s a nice template for generating ideas for: when would an agent want to allow its values to shift?
I’m glad you broke free of trying to equal others’ bragged-about abilities. Not everyone needs to be great at everything. People who invest in learning something generally talk up the benefits of what they paid for. I’m thinking of Heinlein’s famous “specialization is for insects” where I presume much of the laundry lists of things every person should know how to do are exactly the arbtirary things he knows how to do.
This guy has a lot of stupid beliefs. It’s too bad we have to hear about them because he made one good call.
A small movement of the average (27 to 25) could consist of 1⁄5 of the population losing 10 points, rather than everyone losing 2 points. So quite a few people could have their health improved, even granting the unsourced 20-35 BMI iso-health range. Terrible reasoning.
As for the second point, encouraging people to get married (or Jesus) because of a correlation is very cargo-cult. At least with rural living, there’s some credible mechanism for health-improvement (reduction in air and noise pollution). I’m sympathetic to the general theme: that the health advocacy I hear is filtered and biased, but I’d like some evidence of taboo health-suggestions that are at least as effective as popular ones.
I’m amused and relieved to have finally followed the “shut up and multiply” link—dozens of prior allusions left me puzzled at the advice to multiply in the biblical sense. I’d always felt it a bit cultish to win by having more (indoctrinated) babies :)