I’m not talking about ‘covering fire’. If your goal is to win an argument or appear righteous, then your strategy is alright. If your goal is to actually get SIAI to change their behavior, then your language is hurting your cause. You want to make it as easy as possible for them to change their behavior, and it’s psychologically much easier to do something because an ally asks than because an adversary asks.
You have seen evidence: both Guy (link) and I (link) posted ‘lessons learned’ for the minicamp. You are right to say this is not especially strong evidence, but it is evidence. I think it would have been good to video tape some of the sessions and post them and post the exit surveys (they took testimonials too).
If your goal is to win an argument or appear righteous, then your strategy is alright.
No, it clearly isn’t. He left himself wide open to this sort of attack.
More fundamentally he justified and explained himself. He did it reasonably well and a good justification can work but it is almost never the optimal strategy.
Sure, and I regularly do (“Well, if situation X seems like it would produce anecdote Y, then all anecdote Y shows us is that situation X happened, not that contention Z is necessarily true—only if situation X shows us that contention Z is true”).
I would surmise that not all commentors are willing to be that forgiving.
And how else should I update after reading two self-selected, subjective assessments? This has a perfectly reasonable Bayesian interpretation.
EDIT: Also note that the grandparent was posted before AnnaSalamon actually fixed the problem at hand.
EDIT x2: And while I’m endlessly editing this comment, let me note that most of this drama could have been averted if someone had just posted the damn data instead of coming up with multiple, bad excuses. Lots of guilty parties, only a couple heroes (in my book, at least).
And how else should I update after reading two self-selected, subjective assessments?
Very little. I was explaining why your comment was downvoted so much. I said “technically inaccurate” as opposed to “wrong” because I am sympathetic to your point of view; it is almost no data. But it is a little bit of data.
I’m not talking about ‘covering fire’. If your goal is to win an argument or appear righteous, then your strategy is alright. If your goal is to actually get SIAI to change their behavior, then your language is hurting your cause. You want to make it as easy as possible for them to change their behavior, and it’s psychologically much easier to do something because an ally asks than because an adversary asks.
You have seen evidence: both Guy (link) and I (link) posted ‘lessons learned’ for the minicamp. You are right to say this is not especially strong evidence, but it is evidence. I think it would have been good to video tape some of the sessions and post them and post the exit surveys (they took testimonials too).
No, it clearly isn’t. He left himself wide open to this sort of attack.
More fundamentally he justified and explained himself. He did it reasonably well and a good justification can work but it is almost never the optimal strategy.
Data is not the plural of anecdote.
(That quote is commonly used by Science and is technically inaccurate under Bayes, in case you were wondering.)
Can we be forgiving and assume that multiple anecdotes fail because they have a consistent bias related to how they are obtained?
Sure, and I regularly do (“Well, if situation X seems like it would produce anecdote Y, then all anecdote Y shows us is that situation X happened, not that contention Z is necessarily true—only if situation X shows us that contention Z is true”).
I would surmise that not all commentors are willing to be that forgiving.
And how else should I update after reading two self-selected, subjective assessments? This has a perfectly reasonable Bayesian interpretation.
EDIT: Also note that the grandparent was posted before AnnaSalamon actually fixed the problem at hand.
EDIT x2: And while I’m endlessly editing this comment, let me note that most of this drama could have been averted if someone had just posted the damn data instead of coming up with multiple, bad excuses. Lots of guilty parties, only a couple heroes (in my book, at least).
Very little. I was explaining why your comment was downvoted so much. I said “technically inaccurate” as opposed to “wrong” because I am sympathetic to your point of view; it is almost no data. But it is a little bit of data.