Ahhhh… 0.15 isn’t 15x 0.1
It’s probably justified simply by priors re male/female committing rape/murder
Ahhhh… 0.15 isn’t 15x 0.1
It’s probably justified simply by priors re male/female committing rape/murder
After spending more time reading on the subject (damn you lw for sucking up so much of my time! :), I’m revising my numbers, in the direction of greater certainty:
0.01
0.01
0.99
0.9
My reasons? Many small things… probably the biggest being: why didn’t knox implicate guede??? If all 3 were there at the crime scene, then she knew that there was a third person involved, someone who:
didn’t have an alibi
had left gratuitous amounts of forensic evidence
was a generally disreputable character
was black (playing on prejudice)
she didn’t know well enough to care about protecting
So if under interrogation you’re being pressured to point the finger at someone, wouldn’t he be the obvious choice, rather than someone picked at random from your phone book?
And why didn’t guede implicate knox/sollecito? When multiple parties conspire to commit a crime, I would strongly suspect that the most common behaviour under interrogation would be to point fingers at each other, not at random 3rd/4th parties.… that is, if the “co-conspirators” are actually aware of each others existence.
As for my revising upwards guede’s guilt, that’s due to the bloody handprint—guede’s handprint, in the victim’s blood.… that’s about as unimpeachable as forensic evidence gets, as it proves not just that he was at the crime scene at some point in time, not just that he had sex with the victim at some point in time, but that the victim was bleeding profusely while in his presence. That seems more solid than a signed confession to me.
As to my original question to bgrah449… well, its a shame he’s not replying… my best guess is that he was confusing guede and lumumba—thats the only thing I can come up with that would make those numbers make sense.
She has herself to blame, but not ONLY herself to blame. Lying to police, despite being innocent, is obviously an incredibly stupid thing to do… but not nearly as uncommon as TV and the movies would have you believe. When people are accused of serious crimes, they freak out and do stupid things, like enhance their alibi or come up with stories to explain away anything that looks incriminating, or wildly speculate about alternate theories of the crime. Stupid yes, rare no.
“luminaled footprints, whether or not they were Amanda’s and Sollecito’s as claimed, proves that someone cleaned something”
No it doen’t. Luminal doesn’t reveal blood EXCLUSIVELY. I read somewhere, sorry, can’t remember where, that it can also light up things like just sweaty/dirty footprints, no blood necessary.
What exactly do you think makes it “apparently staged”? All the evidence I’m aware of is that it looked like a burglary cause it was a burglary.
This assumption that at least part of the burglary/break in was staged seems to me entirely unjustified. The only thing I’ve heard offered to support it is that the broken glass was on top of the strewn clothes, but seriously that doesn’t prove anything… maybe the clothes were just strewn across the room innocently… maybe the glass just happened by chance to end up on top at the end of the clothes being mucked about with.… theres an infinite possible number of explanations that don’t involve anything being staged.
And as to the assertion that it was staged since it looked like a burglary but nothing was stolen, thats simply not true: kercher’s two cellphones were stolen, at a minimum (any number of other things might also have been stolen, but just not noticed missing, due to their owner not being around to point them out)
“Sorry, the clothes were strewn across the room innocently? By whom? For what possible reason?”
I haven’t seen the crimescene, I’m only speculating of course. But does the fact that some friends describe her as a neat person really preclude any possibility whatsoever that she might have had some clothes strewn about? Maybe she was a neat person who cleaned up her room once a day or so, but just hadn’t gotten to her daily cleaning session yet that day when the crime occurred. Or maybe her friends were just being nice by describing her as neat. Or maybe any of a million other things. The point is that there are so many possible explanations for this that it has no evidentiary value—it’s just noise, to paraphrase OP
I DO get this post—I understand, and agree with the general concept, but I think Venu has a point that asynchronous programming is a bad example… although it LITERALLY means only “non-synchronous”, in practice it refers to a pretty specific type of alternative programming methodology… much more particular than just the set of all programming methodologies that aren’t synchronous.
upvoted for citing tvtropes :)
but I can’t quite figure out why a person would be turned on only by a cartoon and not >the real thing
Because they’re lying
Getting back to trying to propose practical mitigation strategies for goodhart’s law, I propose a fairly simple solution: Choose a G*, evaluate performance based on it, but KEEP IT SECRET. This of course wouldn’t really work for national scale, GDP-esque kind of situations, but for corporate management situations it seems like it could work well enough. If only upper management knows what G* is, it becomes impossible to optimize for it, and everyone has to just keep working under the assumption they’re being evaluated on G.
Taking it a step further, to hedge against employees eventually figuring out G* and surreptitiously optimizing for it, you could have a bounty on guessing G* - the first employee who figures out what the mystery metric G* really is gets a prize, and as soon as it’s claimed, you switch to using G**
Hmmm… just a couple of days ago I posted a comment here at LW, initially prefaced with something to the effect of “I’ve actually been thinking about this exact issue off and on for several years now”.… but I ended up editing that out because I thought it sounded pretentious.
Just curious: who downvoted this, and why? I found it amusing, and actually a pretty decent suggestion. It bothers me that there seems to be an anti-humor bias here… it’s been stated that this is justified in order to keep LW from devolving into a social, rather than intellectual forum, and I guess I can understand that… but I don’t understand why a comment which is actually germane to the parent’s question, but just happens to also be mildly amusing, should warrant a downvote.
Hmmm… I guess I was engaging in mind projection fallacy in assuming everyone got the reference, and the downvote was for disapproving of it, rather than just not getting it.
Counterexample: Space shuttle.
Really? I think only 6 of them were built, and 2 of those suffered catastrophic failure with all hands lost.
Not sure if I count as a lurker, since I’ve posted a few things here and there, but I’ve never introduced myself properly, so “Hi!”
I discovered LW via OB, which I discovered via researching Hanson’s ideas on prediction markets… my primary interest is in Hanson-esque ideas on designing social institutions to be Less Wrong.
I’ve been gradually bringing myself up to speed on Eliezer’s writings, and I am still somewhat skeptical on singularity-related issues, but less so than when I first started reading.
I have no impressive sounding credentials to my name… well, I have a B.S. in Computer Science, but I don’t feel like that really counts as a qualification for the kinds of issues discussed here.
That’s about all I can think of at the moment, introduction wise.… now where’s my free karma point?! ;)
This is an old thread, so I probably won’t get a response, but I’m just curious: could you clarify what issues you think Shermer and P&T got wrong? Are you just referring to the cryonics thing with the latter? Or something else too?
I just took the wired test, and scored a 31. I’m not sure what to make of this. For years now I’ve wondered whether I have asperger’s symptoms, and gone back and forth on it, but never been able to make up my mind—seeking a formal diagnosis seems like waste of time, since there isn’t any real treatment. But I AM curious about it.
My opinion seems to go back and forth depending on whose description of the symptoms I’m reading—sometimes I’ll read something on asperger’s and think “Yes, that’s totally me”, and other times I’ll read something and say “no, not me at all”. It really seems to depend on how the author phrases the symptoms.
The big thing to me seems to be the “inability to read social cues/read between the lines/read facial expressions”.… That doesn’t sound like me—I definitely feel I am able to pick up and read these kinds of cues—better than most people in fact.… I just have a very hard time responding in kind. As to understanding politeness/social appropriateness, it’s not so much that I don’t UNDERSTAND these things, as that I find them silly, and can’t force myself to play along with things that I see as stupid status games masquerading as meaningful social interaction.
I see two possible explanations for this discrepancy:
Asperger’s symptoms are consistently misunderstood by the researchers who study them—they observe people failing to appropriately RESPOND to social cues, etc, and incorrectly assume they’re failing to UNDERSTAND those cues.
I don’t have asperger’s.
I’m not sure how to evaluate the relative likelihood of these two possibilities. Does anyone else here with aspeger’s or other autism spectrum disorders have similar experiences?
some people/society in general are lumping every introverted neuro untypical into asperger’s/autism however there are two groups in that larger group
Yeah… I read Risto’s link (I think I’d read it before), and I do see some similarities there, but neither lines up with me 100%… the more I read about these things, the more it seems to me like the whole idea of classifying psychiatric ‘disorders’ is just bunk—a widely diverse range of personality characteristics are just being artificially crammed onto a one dimensional scale, and then clusters are labeled as ‘disorders’ despite not really having a common cause.
Not trying to enforce groupthink here, just sincerely curious: could you elaborate on your reasoning a bit? The pro-guilt site doesn’t seem to have much in the way of coherent arguments—hopefully a fellow rationalist could do a better job of explaining the other side’s thought process.
I’m especially baffled by the 0.2 for Guede—it seems like the only possible explanation for his innocence would be a massive conspiracy/frameup by police… which, don’t get me wrong, I would never be so naive as to assign p=0, but if that’s what you think happened, how do you get from there to the other two being probably guilty?
What’s really confusing me I think is that your combination of the 3 values (guede innocent, knox and sollecito guilty) doesn’t seem to correspond to any theory of the crime being proposed by anyone on either side.
Oh, and since I’m posting I guess I should play by the rules and post my own opinions (which I arrived at before reading comments):
0.1
0.1
0.95
0.6
Provided links