Non-naive nurture matters to an extent, my argument has nuance. This is pretty much the exact domain of statistical decision theory/prescriptive decision theory and its conclusions have strict priority. The problem is that a large class of the professional intellectual class have not caught up.
A comment on your style of argumentation in general: Can you please stop vaguely referring to theories without pinpointing what exactly it says that supports your view?
I’m sort of shocked I have to refer to anything, this is pretty much standard less-wrong material. This is not ‘vaguely’ this is pretty much bread and butter. I gave references in my original post(first few chapters of gambling with the truth/any textbook on statistical decision theory). His statement is incorrect out of the box without me being difficult whatsoever.
I don’t think that definition is adequate.
Non-naive nurture matters to an extent, my argument has nuance. This is pretty much the exact domain of statistical decision theory/prescriptive decision theory and its conclusions have strict priority. The problem is that a large class of the professional intellectual class have not caught up.
A comment on your style of argumentation in general: Can you please stop vaguely referring to theories without pinpointing what exactly it says that supports your view?
I’m sort of shocked I have to refer to anything, this is pretty much standard less-wrong material. This is not ‘vaguely’ this is pretty much bread and butter. I gave references in my original post(first few chapters of gambling with the truth/any textbook on statistical decision theory). His statement is incorrect out of the box without me being difficult whatsoever.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/gu1/decision_theory_faq/#what-do-decision-theorists-mean-by-risk-ignorance-and-uncertainty