ADHD and Autism share early social difficulties and is nonspecific. One thing that differentiates the two is different profiles of impairment in executive function.
Autism has deficits in verbal working memory, while ADHD has deficits in motor inhibition.
The base rates of ADHD are also much higher than that of autism, so factor that into your calculations.
In addition, a guaranteed reward could create an anchoring on the reward, devaluing it.
Actually, some of my more intelligent friends complain that they can’t find a man (that they would consider dating) that isn’t threatened by their intelligence.
Now is this a social narrative, a post hoc justification of a failed relationship fueled by the self serving bias, or something else entirely?
Dating is one area of interest where anecdotage should be taken with a mountain of salt.
While that idea is, in my eyes, a good blend of effective and practical, it doesn’t rule out all confounding explanations. If this pattern was found, it would not necessarily prove that their potential mates were intimidated by their intelligence.
Perhaps a way of testing it would be going to a dating service and telling random men that the woman they were dating was very intelligent (regardless of her actual intelligence)?
The former due to the rose tinted glasses of the self serving bias and the fundimental attribution error.
On a personal note I’m very attracted to intelligent women but I wouldn’t be surprised at all if men in general did find intellectual women intimidating.
Didn’t George Orwell preempt him in “1984”?
Jokes aside, is that a common criticism of consequentialist ethics? How do we determine the “morality” of an act by its consequences if the consequences extend into time infinitely and are unknown to us beyond the most temporally immediate?
Maybe I’m just too dumb to understand what Robert Wright was saying, but was he being purposely evasive and misunderstanding what Eliezer was saying when he realised he was in trouble? Or was that just me?
Maybe Wright’s friends thought he did great under fire?
I wish I could have watched it without knowing who either person was, rather than just not knowing who Wright was. That would be interesting
From what I understand, to be a “Rational Agent” in game theory means someone who maximises their utility function (and not the one you ascribe to them). To say Omega is rewarding irrational agents isn’t necessarily fair, since payoffs aren’t always about the money. Lottery tickets are a good example this.
What if my utility function says the worst outcome is living the rest of my life with regrets that I didn’t one box? Then I can one box and still be a completely rational agent.
Fair point. There are too many hidden variables already without me explicitly adding more. If Newcomb’s problem is to maximise money recieved (with no regard for what it seen as reasonable), the “Why ain’t you rich argument seems like a fairly compelling one doesn’t it? Winning the money is all that matters.
I just realised that all I’ve really done is paraphrase the original post. Curse you source monitoring error!
16 possible combination’s of Weapon/Armor available, 256 possible combination’s of Weapons/Armor between two players.
Only factor in deciding a winner between players is the player with the higher DPS, the margin between the two players is irrelevant.
So you work out the winner in each of the 256 match-ups (16 mirror matches will be stalemates). Armed with the knowledge of what-beats-what, it’s just a matter of knowing the distribution what combo’s other players went and selecting the best armor/sword combo for that population.
Do these steps seem right?
I’d actually kind of like to work this out, but there has to be a better way to work out the 256 combo’s than doing it all by hand. Any suggestions?
Considering the amount of time and effort I regularly waste procrastinating, my time doesn’t seem to be worth that much. I think there is a very strong chance that if I speak out, other people might too. The well was poisoned early on in the unit where it was declared that “racist people generally have problems with this unit”, now most people feel that they’ll be vilified if they disagree with any of the coursework. I kind of agree with that assessment too.
Would I enjoy picking the fight? Yes, but I’m also working to change that fact about myself. The fact is, most people in the unit just don’t care, they don’t see it as an issue. Rather than counter the arguments, they’re much more likely to ignore them, leaving me wondering why I bothered trying.
My impression of their open mindedness is that it really is an individual thing. Some people agree with me because they want to please people (which isn’t what I’m after),
Some people disagree with me and hit me with a confident “but that’s just your opinion” (which drives me absolutely insane, what can you even do here?)
Some people listen to my arguments, think about them (this is what I’m after), then come to some sort of conclusion.
I suppose its the second group of people that really frustrate me and make me want to not bother. I say that the idea of “multiple truths” implies that anything can be true. If anything can be true, then nothing is false. If this was the case, why bother coming to University to learn at all? According to what multiple truths implies, if you think it, it’s true.
If I’m talking to someone from group 2, I’ll get variations on “No you’re wrong.”, “That’s just your opinion” or “I don’t care.”
All three responses really push my buttons.
Well it is a problem I face a lot, so I’d like to find the best solution.
Well keep in mind the golden rule of game theory, players payoffs = players payoffs, not the values you assign them.
So students as a whole go to university to get a degree. As this is a core unit that must be completed, gibberish or not, a rational university student will aim to pass the unit. The lecturer (I’ve no idea what his payoffs are) makes a career out of advancing his own gibberish viewpoint, so he’s also rational. Clearly, while I see a clear failing of the university system, all players are achieving their goals. All players are rational in the game theoretic sense.
If you’re 80% of the way through a degree in a field that you care about, I see two options, continue or stop. If I stop, I’ve wasted time, effort and considerable amounts of money. If I continue, I have to put up with my lecturers unpolished set of beliefs.
Continuing the degree is a perfectly rational course of action. Even assuming that my degree was complete bollocks, there is a market for lemons.
Your reasoning is correct IF AND ONLY IF the degree is not valuable. The degree however is clearly valuable since it will increase my employment options. If you believe that degree is not valuable, I’ll ask that you give your line of reasoning.
Apparently some people here look down on a psychology degree. I don’t blame you, the curriculum doesn’t do the subject matter justice. The condescending attitude is something you might want to examine though.
Hi.
I’m a lurking Australian psychology student. I’m trying to devour information and acquire the skills to help me to separate the wheat from the considerable amount of chaff in my field of study. I’m so fascinated by this blog (worked through most of the sequences in the space of about two months) because to be honest it has more content than my university course.
I have been toying with the idea of posting some of the arguments I’ve been in recently which would be kind of a case study where I could point to where they might have gone wrong in cognition, but I kind of feel that it might be a bit pedestrian to most readers of this blog.