How clever of you to share another one! A gold star for both of us! Can you now explain why trusting a sound rationalist’s or specialist’s conclusions based on their authority if one hasn’t the time to investigate them oneself is wrong from a Bayesian perspective?
Now, can you recite (and criticize) his reasons?
I think it mattes for his arguments about us being the pattern in our brain rather than the meat of our brain. But again I haven’t read all of the QM sequence, I don’t recall claiming I was a particularly good rationalist, all I claimed was that: “It really really helps to be comfortable with math to do rationality, there is no way around it. ”
You don’t need to be a great rationalist to see that.
Why? There is very little math in the Sequences, and almost none beyond the American grade 10 equivalent. Most is simple arithmetic and an occasional simple equation.
Please tell me how many Americans with 10 grade equivalent can read and understand any of the statistics used in papers LWers cite. How much of a gwern do they have in them? Those who can’t and don’t read the studies cited are taking EY’s or gwern’s or lukeprogs conclusions on various topics as much on authority as I am the relevance of QM to rationality.
all I claimed was that: “It really really helps to be comfortable with math to do rationality, there is no way around it.”
It helps, I don’t disagree. Especially if you have to calculate some Bayesian thingies. But that’s an advanced level. In a hypothetical RationalU it would probably correspond to the third year.
How clever of you to share another one! A gold star for both of us! Can you now explain why trusting a sound rationalist’s or specialist’s conclusions based on their authority if one hasn’t the time to investigate them oneself is wrong from a Bayesian perspective?
I think it mattes for his arguments about us being the pattern in our brain rather than the meat of our brain. But again I haven’t read all of the QM sequence, I don’t recall claiming I was a particularly good rationalist, all I claimed was that: “It really really helps to be comfortable with math to do rationality, there is no way around it. ”
You don’t need to be a great rationalist to see that.
Please tell me how many Americans with 10 grade equivalent can read and understand any of the statistics used in papers LWers cite. How much of a gwern do they have in them? Those who can’t and don’t read the studies cited are taking EY’s or gwern’s or lukeprogs conclusions on various topics as much on authority as I am the relevance of QM to rationality.
It helps, I don’t disagree. Especially if you have to calculate some Bayesian thingies. But that’s an advanced level. In a hypothetical RationalU it would probably correspond to the third year.