Just an observation: I’ve mostly ignored this discussion, but it appears to have generated a lot of meaningful debate about the very fundamental epistemic issues at play (though a lot of unproductive debate as well). No consensus on which position is idiotic has apparently arisen.
With that in mind, surely this article should be rated above 1? Are the upvotes being canceled by downvotes, or are people just not voting it either way? Why isn’t this rated higher?
Okay. That’s good—I agree with that standard. So is the consensus that, however productive the debate might be that is going on in the comments, the article that prompted them wasn’t very good? If so, the rating seems reasonable. (I felt the same way about the top-level article that was basically just the question, “What are you doing, and why are you doing it?”)
I suspect that people don’t like the tone/conclusions/analysis, and much of the debate was instigated by the article’s author. If someone wrote a post that successfully managed to explain what people actually mean when they say the answer goes one way or the other, then I’d expect that one to be rated higher.
Frankly, I think the Wikipedia article on the sleeping beauty problem tells you everything you’d get out of this article and more, without the implication that 1⁄2 is the right answer and people who answer 1⁄3 are doing something basically stupid.
And if an article doesn’t add anything over Wikipedia, it probably doesn’t deserve to be upvoted. Just add a link to the Wikipedia page on the open thread.
The thing is, the argument in favor of the 1⁄3 solution on the Wikipedia page is flawed. I tried to explain the flaw, but perhaps I failed. It makes me cringe when I think that people are going to that page for the solution.
Also, not only did I critique the wikipedia page, but I critiqued parts of papers by Radford Neal and Nick Bostrom.
That’s not to say my post deserves more up votes. Others can judge the quality of my work. But I’m pretty sure I covered some new ground here.
Just an observation: I’ve mostly ignored this discussion, but it appears to have generated a lot of meaningful debate about the very fundamental epistemic issues at play (though a lot of unproductive debate as well). No consensus on which position is idiotic has apparently arisen.
With that in mind, surely this article should be rated above 1? Are the upvotes being canceled by downvotes, or are people just not voting it either way? Why isn’t this rated higher?
I, for one, rate articles by the article text alone, not by the discussions generated in their comment threads.
Okay. That’s good—I agree with that standard. So is the consensus that, however productive the debate might be that is going on in the comments, the article that prompted them wasn’t very good? If so, the rating seems reasonable. (I felt the same way about the top-level article that was basically just the question, “What are you doing, and why are you doing it?”)
I suspect that people don’t like the tone/conclusions/analysis, and much of the debate was instigated by the article’s author. If someone wrote a post that successfully managed to explain what people actually mean when they say the answer goes one way or the other, then I’d expect that one to be rated higher.
Frankly, I think the Wikipedia article on the sleeping beauty problem tells you everything you’d get out of this article and more, without the implication that 1⁄2 is the right answer and people who answer 1⁄3 are doing something basically stupid.
And if an article doesn’t add anything over Wikipedia, it probably doesn’t deserve to be upvoted. Just add a link to the Wikipedia page on the open thread.
Alright, sounds good to me. Rating seems reasonable then.
ETA: And let me add that such restraint in voting gives me renewed confidence LW’s karma system.
The thing is, the argument in favor of the 1⁄3 solution on the Wikipedia page is flawed. I tried to explain the flaw, but perhaps I failed. It makes me cringe when I think that people are going to that page for the solution.
Also, not only did I critique the wikipedia page, but I critiqued parts of papers by Radford Neal and Nick Bostrom.
That’s not to say my post deserves more up votes. Others can judge the quality of my work. But I’m pretty sure I covered some new ground here.