Not always, since:
The average human has one breast and one testicle
Des McHale
In other words, the average of a distribution is not necessarily the most probable value.
Omegaile
Karma: 204
At the moment I feel like health isn’t as important as good reinforcement
You traded HP for XP.
That’s a really insightful comment!
But I should correct you, that you are only talking about the Spanish conquest, not the Portuguese, since 1) Mesoamerica was not conquered by the Portuguese; 2) Portuguese possessions in America (AKA Brazil) had very little gold and silver, which was only discovered much later, when it was already in Portuguese domain.
I know that. People are so lame. Not me though. I am one of the genius ones.
I felt so rebel giving passwords right above Google’s message:
Never submit passwords through Google Forms
So they are building their reputation on their marketing skills, not on the future.
There aren’t enough interesting sequences of 40 coinflips to ever see one.
Every sequence of 40 coin flips is interesting. Proof: Make a 1 to 1 relation on the sequence of 40 coin flips and a subset of the natural numbers, by making H=1 and T=0 and reading the sequence as a binary representation. Proceed by showing that every natural number is interesting.
I think value was used meaning importance.
Lets abstract about this:
There are 2 unfair coins. One has P(heads)=1/3 and the other P(heads)=2/3. I take one of them, flip twice and it turns heads twice. Now I believe that the coin chosen was the one with P(heads)=2/3. In fact there are 4⁄5 likelihood of being so. I also believe that flipping again will turn heads again, mostly because I think that I choose the 2⁄3 heads coin (p=8/15). I also admit the possibility of getting heads but being wrong about the chosen coin, but this is much less likely (p=1/15). So I bet on heads. So I flip it again and it turns heads. I was right. But it turns out that the coin was the other one, the one with P(heads)=1/3 (which I found after a few hundreds flips). Would you say I was right for the wrong reasons? Well I was certainly surprised to find out I had the wrong coin. Does this apply for the Gettier problem?
Lets go back to the original problem to see that this abstraction is similar. Smith believes “the person who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket”. And he does that mostly because he thinks Jones will get it and has ten coins. But if he is reasonable, he will also admit the possibility of he getting the job and also having ten coins, although with lower probability.
My point here is: at which probability the Gettier problem arises? Would it arises if in the coin problem P(heads) was different?
You know, it would be interesting if Yvain had put something else there just to see how many people would try to cheat.
People tend to conform to it’s peers values.
Just out of curiosity, how are you now, a little more than a year later? Taking out “3”, that seems harder to change, how much of these points still apply in your life?
“If I agree, why should I bother saying it? Doesn’t my silence signal agreement enough?”
The fact is that there is a strong motive to disagree: either I change my opinion, or you do.
On the other hand, the motives for agreeing are much more subtle: there is an ego boost; and I can influence other people to conform. Unless I am a very influent person, these two reasons are important as a group, but not much individually.
Which lead us to think: There is a similar problem with elections, and why economists don´t vote .
Anyway there is a nice analogy with physics: eletromagnetic force are much stronger than gravitational, but at large scale gravity is much more influent. (which is kinda obvius and made me think why no one pointed this on this post before)
I think the only problem with the article is that it tries to otheroptimize. It seems to address a problem that the author had, as some people do. He seems to overestimate the usefulness of his advices though (he writes for anyone except if “your career is going great, you’re thrilled with your life and you’re happy with your relationships”). As mentioned by NancyLebovitz, the article is not for the clinical depressed, in fact it is only for a small (?) set of people who sits around all day whining, who thinks they deserve better for who they are, without actually trying to improve the situation.
That said, this over generalization is a problem that permeates most self help, and the article is not more guilty than the average.
You could ask: Was the Trojan War an actual historical event?
It is not actually an popular question, but it is a question about a popular subject. I wouldn’t say it’s important, but it fits all other criteria. You could fill the listener about the details.
Interesting… it reminded me of this comic: http://xkcd.com/690/
“Bias” has a strict definition. Not all errors are biases. One can clearly be wrong and rational, for example, by not gathering enough information (laziness, or lack of time...).
Time on Less Wrong/IQ: -.164 (492)
Wait, this means that reading less wrong makes you dumber!
Hmmm, there was something about correlation and causation… but I don’t remember it well. I must be spending too much time on less wrong.
That quote seems to be very good in making idiots who think they are not (the majority) to behave like idiots.
You two talk between yourselves so that only one of you upvote the entire comment.