Alright you guys here is an alternative reason why anyone who disagrees with my stance that I outlined is incorrect.
1) You go on less wrong/overcoming bias
2) Keith stanovich exists
3) you can learn rationality(non-genetic) which confers advantages arguably more than I.Q.(see stanovich)
4) it is reverse stupidity (my athropic probabilities argument i gave to gwern)
5) therefore it is a can
6) it is an advantage period
7) CFAR is not genetic
All my other arguments were correct. I object to anyone calling anything I was saying vague, I understand that LW has a much higher tendency of autistic thought and if you have it please cooperate with me in how to think. Not everything is ‘vague’.
I found it absolutely strange that everyone disagreed considering you are here to overcome bias. I dislike petty downvoting rings.
I understand that LW has a much higher tendency of autistic thought and if you have it please cooperate with me in how to think.
That’s hard when you aren’t willing to take a position on issues such as whether you believe that “there are meaningful differences in parenting quality of US middle class people”.
If you want to have a decent discussion than it helps to be open about your own position.
I found it absolutely strange
That translates into: “I lack understanding of what other people are thinking.” It suggests that your mental model is wrong and needs updating.
No it does not necessarily mean that. Less wrong has an extremely concentrated individual of very petty people especially on the forums and it’s quite suffocating at times. Everyone agrees with that fact in the bay area meetup communities.
Being lesswrong & learning rationality to overcome biases is a standard less wrong topic and nothing I said was incorrect.
People were making standard reasoning errors. If you are on less wrong and you do not think you can learn skills that confer you an advantage then you are in the wrong place. My argument was wider than what you were suggesting. Parents can easily teach their kids how to meliorate their wetware. My argument that Jayman implies lack of uncertainty/ignorance and that all utilities equate to zero was my argument and you did not talk about it.
We should only give the older members downvoting abilities like hacker news because a certain minority just ruins it.
Being lesswrong & learning rationality to overcome biases is a standard less wrong topic and nothing I said was incorrect.
Yes, that’s not the part where your belief needs updating. This is not the first discussion on LW about whether parenting has an effect.
My argument was wider than what you were suggesting. Parents can easily teach their kids how to meliorate their wetware.
Yes, you add theoretical arguments to anecdotal evidence.
If creating benefits for children through teaching them skills is that easy, why do you think those benefits don’t show up in the twin studies?
If you are on less wrong and you do not think you can learn skills that confer you an advantage then you are in the wrong place.
That sounds very much like motivated cognition to me.
My argument that Jayman implies lack of uncertainty/ignorance and that all utilities equate to zero was my argument and you did not talk about it.
I did take about it. Someone who says X is less important then it’s generally believed isn’t arguing that X has a zero effect. Treating him as if he would argue that means to strawman.
It’s generally more useful to steelman arguments than to strawman them.
We should only give the older members downvoting abilities like hacker news because a certain minority just ruins it.
I think you make a mistake if you think that you got mainly downvoted by newer people.
I talked this over with a large amount of people I have known know in the bay area rationalist community and I am correct, and they told me to just ignore it(and you). It’s just a problem with posting on forums.
You have still failed to answer the one part of my argument I was referring to, if it has zero effect is has the integral of utilities set to zero which is completely false, it also means the probabilities are enumerated which is false, the study design only enumerates parts of the entire probabilities of the spectrum, that’s what statistical analysis IS. If you do not see why the twin design study does not enumerate all relevant probabilities under analysis then you need to reed more. Sorry. Do twin design studies remove all uncertainties? No not really it depends on what we are talking about. Statistical analysis is not the whole picture when it comes to executing over risk, because there is a hard limit for the utility of statistical analysis for decision making which is why we hand it off to prescriptive decision theory.
I am fundamentally satisfied that I am correct afaik.
I did take about it. Someone who says X is less important then it’s generally believed isn’t arguing that X has a zero effect. Treating him as if he would argue that means to strawman. It’s generally more useful to steelman arguments than to strawman them.
Does it look like I’m strawmaning? I did not strawman any argument I had direct quotes and he has talked to me several times implying the same thing and in fact many people accept that those are his positions. He has directly told me it has zero effect. Read that quote and then read your ridiculous posturing.
Keith Stanovich’s arguments apply to the entire human race as does the certainty & utilities argument. I have given you direct quotes and direct reading material which DIRECTLY STATES ALL OF MY ARGUMENTS. I’ve had enough.
calm down and stop arguing about someone using the word zero in a hyperbolic fashion. It doesn’t matter, you’re not convincing anyone, even Jayman probably doesn’t actually believe the influence of parents is zero if you asked in a non-confrontational way. And even if he does: it doesn’t matter. You’re coming somewhere else and arguing about one random guy’s views. You’re getting really upset and confrontational about it. You’re not adding any information and you’re constantly talking past everyone else.
or Risk—A Multidisciplinary Introduction all emphasize non-statistical risk measures. It doesn’t matter whether it’s zero or not.
“We discuss a simplified view of
risk assessment and do not cover
decision and utility theory except
in passing and to make the point
that such theory is not enough
without coherent models of the
problem situation. Most other
books try to present decision the-
ory and risk all at once and in a
very mathematical way; this can
be rather overwhelming.”
Alright?
You’re not adding any information
False. I have given further resources and people have not talked about them. Not every one is passive.
Alright you guys here is an alternative reason why anyone who disagrees with my stance that I outlined is incorrect.
1) You go on less wrong/overcoming bias
2) Keith stanovich exists
3) you can learn rationality(non-genetic) which confers advantages arguably more than I.Q.(see stanovich)
4) it is reverse stupidity (my athropic probabilities argument i gave to gwern)
5) therefore it is a can
6) it is an advantage period
7) CFAR is not genetic
All my other arguments were correct. I object to anyone calling anything I was saying vague, I understand that LW has a much higher tendency of autistic thought and if you have it please cooperate with me in how to think. Not everything is ‘vague’.
I found it absolutely strange that everyone disagreed considering you are here to overcome bias. I dislike petty downvoting rings.
That’s hard when you aren’t willing to take a position on issues such as whether you believe that “there are meaningful differences in parenting quality of US middle class people”.
If you want to have a decent discussion than it helps to be open about your own position.
That translates into: “I lack understanding of what other people are thinking.” It suggests that your mental model is wrong and needs updating.
No it does not necessarily mean that. Less wrong has an extremely concentrated individual of very petty people especially on the forums and it’s quite suffocating at times. Everyone agrees with that fact in the bay area meetup communities.
Being lesswrong & learning rationality to overcome biases is a standard less wrong topic and nothing I said was incorrect.
http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/gs5/improving_human_rationality_through_cognitive/
People were making standard reasoning errors. If you are on less wrong and you do not think you can learn skills that confer you an advantage then you are in the wrong place. My argument was wider than what you were suggesting. Parents can easily teach their kids how to meliorate their wetware. My argument that Jayman implies lack of uncertainty/ignorance and that all utilities equate to zero was my argument and you did not talk about it.
We should only give the older members downvoting abilities like hacker news because a certain minority just ruins it.
Yes, that’s not the part where your belief needs updating. This is not the first discussion on LW about whether parenting has an effect.
Yes, you add theoretical arguments to anecdotal evidence.
If creating benefits for children through teaching them skills is that easy, why do you think those benefits don’t show up in the twin studies?
That sounds very much like motivated cognition to me.
I did take about it. Someone who says X is less important then it’s generally believed isn’t arguing that X has a zero effect. Treating him as if he would argue that means to strawman. It’s generally more useful to steelman arguments than to strawman them.
I think you make a mistake if you think that you got mainly downvoted by newer people.
I talked this over with a large amount of people I have known know in the bay area rationalist community and I am correct, and they told me to just ignore it(and you). It’s just a problem with posting on forums.
You have still failed to answer the one part of my argument I was referring to, if it has zero effect is has the integral of utilities set to zero which is completely false, it also means the probabilities are enumerated which is false, the study design only enumerates parts of the entire probabilities of the spectrum, that’s what statistical analysis IS. If you do not see why the twin design study does not enumerate all relevant probabilities under analysis then you need to reed more. Sorry. Do twin design studies remove all uncertainties? No not really it depends on what we are talking about. Statistical analysis is not the whole picture when it comes to executing over risk, because there is a hard limit for the utility of statistical analysis for decision making which is why we hand it off to prescriptive decision theory.
I am fundamentally satisfied that I am correct afaik.
read the first chapter of this http://www.amazon.com/Assessment-Decision-Analysis-Bayesian-Networks/dp/1439809100 or get it from libgen
https://twitter.com/JayMan471/status/595063270190493696
Does it look like I’m strawmaning? I did not strawman any argument I had direct quotes and he has talked to me several times implying the same thing and in fact many people accept that those are his positions. He has directly told me it has zero effect. Read that quote and then read your ridiculous posturing.
Keith Stanovich’s arguments apply to the entire human race as does the certainty & utilities argument. I have given you direct quotes and direct reading material which DIRECTLY STATES ALL OF MY ARGUMENTS. I’ve had enough.
calm down and stop arguing about someone using the word zero in a hyperbolic fashion. It doesn’t matter, you’re not convincing anyone, even Jayman probably doesn’t actually believe the influence of parents is zero if you asked in a non-confrontational way. And even if he does: it doesn’t matter. You’re coming somewhere else and arguing about one random guy’s views. You’re getting really upset and confrontational about it. You’re not adding any information and you’re constantly talking past everyone else.
Then we can merely respond to whatever range of the interval you think the utilities are. Read this
http://www.bayesianrisk.com/sample_chapters/Chapter%201%20There%20is%20more%20to%20assessing%20risk%20than%20statistics.pdf
http://www.bayesianrisk.com/sample_chapters/Chapter%202%20The%20need%20for%20causal%20explanatory%20models%20in%20risk%20assessment.pdf
or Risk—A Multidisciplinary Introduction all emphasize non-statistical risk measures. It doesn’t matter whether it’s zero or not.
Alright?
False. I have given further resources and people have not talked about them. Not every one is passive.