Superforecaster, social science, metascience, data science. USA & Canada.
On Twitter or BlueSky you’d find me @thatMikeBishop
Mike Bishop
Karma: 659
Tell yourself the effort is doomed - and it will be!@Eliezer: People are going to misinterpret this far too frequently. Add an addendum to the post to clarify it.
A related issue is that comments on older posts are less likely to be read, and less likely to be voted on. Earlier comments are, on average, somewhat better comments (See one analysis of this here—http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/02/does-the-qualit.html ). But I still think the status quo is sub-optimal, especially when most people view comments sorted by popularity or in chronological order.
Now the fun part:
If this comment receives positive votes, how will that affect your assessment of its quality?
I agree that, on average, improvements in rationality lead to more winning, but I’m not convinced that every improvement in rationality does. It seems possible that a non-trivial number make winning harder.
I know I’m not teaching Robin anything, but it should be noted that meta-analyses often fail to overcome publication selection biases.
Surely you have varying degrees of confidence in various statements. Think about what sort of odds you would need to bet on various predicted future events. You need to read up on calibrating your estimates.
Racial differences and gender differences are very different topics. Especially if we are interested in discussing whether, or the extent to which, they are rooted in biology.
Define bisexuality.
This position is not uncommon, and it is very different from my understanding of your first comment.
I’m sorry I don’t have more time to respond in detail. Just let me recommend the vitally important, if imperfect work by Jared Diamond, James Flynn and William Dickens, and Gregory Clark.
John, If you have a unique, opinion, write it up somewhere! If you have a rare opinion, link to explanations from those rare individuals.
Could they reliably avoid leaks over long periods of time?
I believe that some improvements in rationality have negative consequences which outweigh their positive ones.
That said, it might be easy to make too much of this. I agree that, on average, marginal improvements in rationality lead to far superior outcomes for individuals and society.
You’re thinking of Asch’s experiments. Apparently, they are widely misrepresented: http://webpage.pace.edu/yrafferty/Yvonne/AschConformityStudy.pdf See also: http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~jkg/Conformity.pdf (I don’t remember where I found these… possibly through OB)
This sounds like a great idea for many cases, but don’t you think that the transactions costs will sometimes be a barrier?
Robin was kind enough not to say what overemphasizing the heroic individual rationalist implies about our true motivations.
I’m surprised to see this go negative.
Granted, Marshall didn’t explain his position in any detail. But his position is not indefensible, and I’m glad he’s willing to share it.
“The solution: turn them into rationalists.”
You don’t say how to accomplish this. Would it require (or at least benefit greatly from) institutional change?
nice work. but i don’t know if the word bayesian should be in the title.
also, why have a scientist say something so stupid?
A couple of quotes on poetry:
Poetry is what gets lost in translation. ~Robert Frost
“Therefore” is a word the poet must not know. ~André Gide
The Gide quote bothers me a little. I think cause and effect relationships are very important, so I’m concerned if he wants to exclude them from poetry.
Are there cognitive scientists creating tests like this? If not, why not?