Since gwern is, well beyond what I thought was typical of him, refusing to call a horse a horse, I’m going to say it: man, you’re so lame.
First understand that I noticed a disagreement going on between someone I’ve never seen before, a Mr. Peacewise, and a Mr. Gwern, whom I despise ever so lightly. He’s a jerk on IRC, you see. It would have made me feel better for him to be wrong and you to be right, you see. I wanted that, in my gut (though not by Tarski).
But man. Gwern posts an article with a perfectly reasonable conclusion attached, and you take a slice of anecdotal evidence to say just the opposite, which just happens to precisely match your preconceptions, and then in the ensuing discussion, instead of recognizing this, you accuse gwern first of being insulting and then of being labored by cognitive biases, meanwhile with no evidence, literally none, that you are right and he is wrong.
I’m just going to point out that I’m surprised that this comment of mine has not only been voted up, but voted up quite strongly, considering it rests in a nest of ‘hidden’ comments. I fully expected this comment to rest somewhere in the neighborhood of −2 karma.
I’m not sure whether to call this a pleasant surprise. I’m really just confused.
I’m just going to point out that I’m surprised that this comment of mine has not only been voted up, but voted up quite strongly, considering it rests in a nest of ‘hidden’ comments. I fully expected this comment to rest somewhere in the neighborhood of −2 karma.
I recall being surprised too, back when I saw your comment (then at +6). Usually I expect that sort of comment to be negative.
Mind you I upvoted it myself because you nailed it. You were a little bit of a jerk in the comment but I thought it was entirely appropriate to the circumstance—and balanced by at least agreeing with Gwern in the current battle.
Hey thanks Grognor, I’ll take your ad hominems about both Gwern and myself with the lack of respect they deserve.
With regards to the article, neither the research in it, nor the anecdotal evidence in it support the counter claim that teenagers are not overconfident.
The article does provide a rationale for why teenagers are overconfident, all I’ve done is unpack that information, first using the articles anecdote, then using the articles described research. meh. One can lead a horse to water but one can’t make it drink.
Just politely, I don’t think this style is going to have good results for you. A more robust approach would be: when something does not deserve your respect, ignore it.
I feel like “technically false” would be more accurate. If it’s just you, the horse, and a puddle, it’s surely going to be at least difficult to convince it to start slurping it up if it doesn’t want to.
I feel like “technically false” would be more accurate. If it’s just you, the horse, and a puddle, it’s surely going to be at least difficult to convince it to start slurping it up if it doesn’t want to.
“You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink if you aren’t very imaginative and your resources are artificially limited”.
There is a sense of “drink” which encompasses raising a glass to your mouth and ingesting the liquid in it, or in the case of horses, lowering their head to the water, taking some into the mouth and swallowing it.
Sticking a tube down a horse’s throat certainly achieves something, but not precisely this.
drink/driNGk/
Verb: Take (a liquid) into the mouth and swallow.
I know you’re having a bit of a laugh, however force feeding is not drinking.
As the wiki you link quite clearly shows, force feeding is having the tube passed through the nose or mouth into the stomach.
Whilst drinking, in context of a horse, doesn’t include a tube, and does include the liquid going into the mouth and being swallowed.
Since gwern is, well beyond what I thought was typical of him, refusing to call a horse a horse, I’m going to say it: man, you’re so lame.
First understand that I noticed a disagreement going on between someone I’ve never seen before, a Mr. Peacewise, and a Mr. Gwern, whom I despise ever so lightly. He’s a jerk on IRC, you see. It would have made me feel better for him to be wrong and you to be right, you see. I wanted that, in my gut (though not by Tarski).
But man. Gwern posts an article with a perfectly reasonable conclusion attached, and you take a slice of anecdotal evidence to say just the opposite, which just happens to precisely match your preconceptions, and then in the ensuing discussion, instead of recognizing this, you accuse gwern first of being insulting and then of being labored by cognitive biases, meanwhile with no evidence, literally none, that you are right and he is wrong.
LAME.
I’m just going to point out that I’m surprised that this comment of mine has not only been voted up, but voted up quite strongly, considering it rests in a nest of ‘hidden’ comments. I fully expected this comment to rest somewhere in the neighborhood of −2 karma.
I’m not sure whether to call this a pleasant surprise. I’m really just confused.
I recall being surprised too, back when I saw your comment (then at +6). Usually I expect that sort of comment to be negative.
Mind you I upvoted it myself because you nailed it. You were a little bit of a jerk in the comment but I thought it was entirely appropriate to the circumstance—and balanced by at least agreeing with Gwern in the current battle.
Hey thanks Grognor, I’ll take your ad hominems about both Gwern and myself with the lack of respect they deserve.
With regards to the article, neither the research in it, nor the anecdotal evidence in it support the counter claim that teenagers are not overconfident.
The article does provide a rationale for why teenagers are overconfident, all I’ve done is unpack that information, first using the articles anecdote, then using the articles described research. meh. One can lead a horse to water but one can’t make it drink.
Just politely, I don’t think this style is going to have good results for you. A more robust approach would be: when something does not deserve your respect, ignore it.
You are indeed correct shokwave, thanks.
Those are insults, not ad hominem fallacies. It is a social violation and not a logical one.
This is patently false.
Do you recall this line in the Matrix?
Thats what i hoped would be understood by the previous, one can lead a horse to water but one cant make it drink.
I feel like “technically false” would be more accurate. If it’s just you, the horse, and a puddle, it’s surely going to be at least difficult to convince it to start slurping it up if it doesn’t want to.
“You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink if you aren’t very imaginative and your resources are artificially limited”.
If they’re sufficiently limited, you can’t even lead a horse to water.
There is a sense of “drink” which encompasses raising a glass to your mouth and ingesting the liquid in it, or in the case of horses, lowering their head to the water, taking some into the mouth and swallowing it.
Sticking a tube down a horse’s throat certainly achieves something, but not precisely this.
Presumably your goal is a hydrated horse, however.
Another example of the danger of explicit goal maximizers.
You could alo be trying to drug the horse or provide him with nutritional supplementation in liquid form.
I know you’re having a bit of a laugh, however force feeding is not drinking.
As the wiki you link quite clearly shows, force feeding is having the tube passed through the nose or mouth into the stomach. Whilst drinking, in context of a horse, doesn’t include a tube, and does include the liquid going into the mouth and being swallowed.