Mathematician turned software engineer. I like swords and book clubs.
magfrump
Karma: 2,551
the issue at stake is P(multiple killers) being very small, and P(knox guilty) - P(random person guilty) is less than zero due to the P(G guilty).
Or at least that is how I would weight them.
The Friends of Amanda site clearly stated that there was no evidence of cleanup and that “cleanup” had only been referenced in passing in the trial, and the prosecution did not pursue the point.
That is, there is not “substantial evidence” of the scene being rearranged, I’m not sure where you’re getting that.
for any well-defined sense of “tend to do better than” it has to, otherwise it isn’t tending to do better.
(since any stock someone has heard of is “tending to do better than” the set of stocks people haven’t heard of)
Unless the statement was intended to be “stocks of companies people have heard of tend to do better than stocks of SIMILAR COMPANIES people haven’t heard of.”
The impression I got was that:
(a) the universe OP is working in has the premise that creating efficient deals is why you should not regulate things
(b) people are being tricked by dealmakers
(c) regulating to stop people from being tricked does not deter efficient deals
you are saying “I’m not being tricked”—that’s a denial of assumption (b).
It may be true that there exist people who are not being tricked and who benefit from the existence of tricks.
On the other hand, that’s not the point. The point is that enough people ARE being tricked, to their detriment, that regulating the tricks will increase total welfare.
This is true regardless of whether or not you personally are being tricked.
OP also cited a paper discussing how tricks aren’t effected regularly by competition, so there is anecdotal evidence at least indicating that the government wouldn’t actually charge you $1 a month regardless.
A large part of your statement was addressing the factuality of (b) which is good, and I’m overall sympathetic to this objection, but you don’t seem fully aware of that being your point, and I disagree with the point in general.
Because helping other people with their problems will help you gain status?
The unaware citizen may be a knowledge specialist (for example, a metro organization wonk) with a friend who is a different knowledge specialist (for example, a financial policy wonk). The two of them would then be able to enter into an agreement where each would attempt to hold their shared government accountable for injustice each could see, while trusting the other to prevent unseen injustice.
Sort of a technocratic turn of events but my heuristics are pretty heavily pro-technocracy.
my P(advertisers are aware they are exploiting people) is very high, and my Expected Value of people not being exploited is similarly high.
My Expected Value of not being paternalistic is relatively low, especially since the FTC has some knowledge specialty, so their being founded could be taken as a mutually beneficial contract with average people to help the average people avoid exploitation.
the 99 and 1 are approximations.
Although my primary motivation is that P(it mattering) is very very small.
Also it’s possible that there is crazy shit and he is still guilty.
semantic distinctions are popular here, apparently.
Conjecture: the amount of time needed to escape the Christian paradigm is arbitrarily large (say, a year of concentrated effort) so Christians are Christians due to time constraints because they don’t see being a Christian as an issue to put time into (reference to the post where Eliezer talked about robots lifting refrigerators and teacups or whatever goes here)
I’d be interested to see how their age played into this.
For example, I would expect that some college students who want to be teachers might find tweens decent company whereas others would be horrified at the prospect, and that 90 year olds might be sympathetic towards 80 year olds, whereas 30 year olds might more often regret drinking too much and studying too little in college.
Although in large part that is propaganda to make the question interesting more than a solid prediction.
Evolution is the game in this context, our conscious minds are players, and the results of the games determine “evolutionary success,” which is to say which minds end up playing the next round.
Assuming I’ve read this correctly of course.
I would say better-than even chances that sites like intrade gain prestige in the next decade
and betting on predictions will become common ( 90% that there is a student at 75% or so of high schools in 2020 that will take bets on future predictions on any subject, 40% that >5% of US middle class will have made a bet about a future prediction)
naive guesses based largely on http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/case-for-climate-futures-markets-ctd.html
I predict further that I will continue to post on LW at least once a month next year (90%) and in 2020 (50%)
Probably a good reason to adjust the estimate down. On the other hand I was 11 in 2000 so I wouldn’t have been on this kind of site anyway, and conditional on the prediction that news-betting becomes more prestigious rationality almost certainly will.
Point taken, with the real point being that I have no sense of how long a decade is, so I’ll adjust that down to a 20%
I have stayed in touch with a different web community for five years, with which I’m still in touch, although only barely at the level of once a month. So my odds for awesomeness overcoming shelf-lifes may be higher than for most.
I use a debit card from my credit union, although I have since moved and it’s rather inconvenient. I would have switched to a more local credit union except that I’ve been too lazy and I will probably be moving again in the next year.
I’ve never met someone else who used a credit union (except my dad.)
One is not prime. The zero function is a trivial function; it actually doesn’t count (for reasons that are technical).
Point in case, then.
From http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/baumeister.dp.html
Baumeister, R.F., Twenge, J.M., & Nuss, C. (in press/2002). Effects of social exclusion on cognitive processes: Anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/pdfmail.php Is his site which allows you to get pdfs of his papers e-mailed to you.
I’m hoping that’s the right study that you’re talking about?
I like this reference class due to the related class of “overly specific things that science was later predicted to do,” such as flying cars, houses on the moon.
Capabilities seem to happen, expected applications less (or later?)
I ended up spending a lot of time looking over the two provided sites, without having ever heard of the case before.
The parts of the “true justice” site that I found most helpful were:
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/how_the_media_should_approach_the_case_if_justice_is_to_be_done_and_seen_to/
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/why_defendants_mostly_dont_testify_those_devils_that_lurk_in_the_details/
Whereas the FoA site seemed very well put together.
The primary pieces of evidence that shape my current beliefs (I have admittedly looked through the comments but they’ve become heterogeneous enough that I don’t think they’ve effected me too much) are:
The FoA site provides a clear outline of possible events, and addresses every outlier I have seen presented. This outline involves the least amount of criminal activity, and so has the highest prior probability for me.
The True Justice site provides a clear outline of possible events, but these events seem to be in contradiction with the FoA events. Specifically, a major point of evidence is the “cleanup phase” which FoA points out was not used by the prosecution—I do not consider the existence of the “cleanup” to be in evidence. The page also involves more conspiracy, giving it a lower prior probability for me.
TJ claims Amanda’s confusion about phone calls made is evidence—to me it seems like evidence of her innocence. I would expect an innocent person to be more confused and forgetful than a guilty one. I would expect a guilty person who was covering up to be more aware of content-unrelated details (such as the prosecution’s assertion that a call was made at 3am seattle time).
FoA presents specific details about poor police protocol around the crime scene, as well as questioning the use of luminol and citing the prosecution’s expert witness. TJ takes “bloody footprints” to be in evidence, I do not believe that they are.
Were I a jurist involved with the trial and were the evidence from these sites all that was presented to me, I would certainly rule that Amanda Knox was innocent, I do not feel that there is sufficient evidence to claim otherwise and cannot comprehend how someone would.
HOWEVER I noticed that 6 Italian judges had considered the case, that she was convicted by a jury, and that Judge Micheli produced a 106 page report on the guilt of RG which indicted RS and AK.
The prosecution has been noted as somewhat crazy, this makes the possibility that the jury wanted to signal disapproval of murder-rape at a level much higher than protect innocent people more probable.
TJ notes that RS and AK stood outside the girls’ house the night of November 1. FoA claims that this was unreliable witness testimony.
I therefore believe that there is substantial evidence for the prosecution of which I am unaware, enough to convince 6 judges and a jury, much of which should be in the micheli report which there’s no way I will read (106 pages of italian?!)
My beliefs hinge primarily on the believability of the testimony—were RS and AK at the house the night of 11⁄1, or did AK return the morning of 11/2?
Now, to answer the first four questions:
P(AK guilty): 41% P(AK|at scene night of 11⁄1): 80% P(AK|not at scene): 2%
P(RS guilty): 38% P(RS|at scene): 75% P(RS|not at scene): .5%
P(RG guilty): 99% P(crazy shit): 1% P(RG guilty| no crazy shit): 99.9999%
Since OP has claim to extra information concerning the case, I suspect that OP will be within 20% of my conditional beliefs for 1. and 2. with 70% confidence. Similarly I suspect that my aggregate beliefs (because they are split evenly between “intense anti-murderape-signaling” and “murderape conspiracy”) for 1. and 2. will be FURTHER than 20% from OPs beliefs with 80% confidence.
Everyone on both sites and here seems convinced of RG’s guilt. I think there’s approximately a 1% chance of some crazy shit happening but otherwise this belief is primarily uninvestigated (relies mainly on people not writing 106 page reports about innocent people murdering each other).