As a sidenote, it’s a very good sign that this discussion has followed the path of
Case studies in medicine are most interesting when all the student doctors disagree with each other.
As a sidenote, it’s a very good sign that this discussion has followed the path of
Case studies in medicine are most interesting when all the student doctors disagree with each other.
What does IAWYC mean?
Agreed. TVTropes works very well without any but the lightest semblance of neutrality.
Warning, though: It is horrendously addictive
The use of “some of which” suggests that he considers most of the holes to be Fruitful Voids, merely not all of them.
Personally, I think the word “win” might be the problem. Winning is very binary, which isn’t how rationality is defined. Perhaps “Rationalists maximize”?
The result of two-boxing is a thousand dollars. The result of one-boxing is a million dollars. By definition, a mind that always one-boxes receives a better payout than one that always two-boxes, and therefore one-boxing is more rational, by definition.
This also shows the dangers of such a method—if Rush gets too powerful, it goes from “You naughty boy, Rush!” to “You naughty boy, critic of Rush!”, like what’s happening now with respect to Michael Steele. And too much extremism can result in evaporative cooling.
But if the tribe expands?
I can choose through the composition of my mind to save 3 lives by wanting to refuse to take the money to save 2 lives. Or I can choose to save the two lives and thus not get 3 lives. Why the hell would I take both boxes?
Speaking of differential equations in economics, a friend of mine has had an idea that there should be an economics textbook for mathematicians, because it annoyed him so much that they seem to dance around mathematical concepts—for example, marginal anything is clearly a derivative, although normal econ textbooks never call it that.
“Composition of my mind” is a bad phrase for it, but what I mean is that I have a collection of neurons that say “I’m a one-boxer” or similar.
You can force yourself to parse the sentence but I suspect that the part of your brain that you use to parse it is different from the one you use in normal reading and in fact closer to the part of the brain you use to solve a puzzle.
On the other hand, 4chan’s view of “fun” includes causing epileptic seizures in others.
The idea of a null hypothesis is non-Bayesian.
On the other hand, “lonely voices of reason” are unlikely to overrun a community of idiots the way idiots can overrun a more intelligent community.
Usenet.
The assumption is that you’re in a two-choice vote, where there is no way to pull the rope sideways.
Only if you have some sort of information about the unanswered prayers.
One warning though: Gambler’s ruin is very possible with betting systems, even if your strategy has a positive expected value.