I’m saying in general with probabilistic inference not necessarily to twin study design. I think I worded it relatively poorly. I’m saying there is that is not necessarily encapsulated in the study because there would have to be some relatively exhaustive statistical machinery applied.
When someone says something with such strength that there is zero effect(ask him on twitter) that means there is no uncertainty and we know all relevant variables and have assigned probabilities and utility values to them(everything is known). Which is false. We do not know if we have missed something related to for , because we have not done exhaustive statistical studies on it. we probably only have so much empirical knowledge related to it. His statement is even stronger that there is no uncertainty, he is saying there is no risk to executing over the advice that parenting has no effect and therefore we can just go do whatever we want with parenting. Which is equivalent to assigning the utilities to all equal zero or the integral to zero.
He is saying there is neither uncertainty, nor risk.
A bit long winded, I think I might ask Mrs.Mayo if I have it right.
To say a statement with such strength of
Parenting has no effect
and that it is advice that could be executed over, say ten thousand people stop parenting their kids would mean that any negative effects that were not captured in the study would be realized no matter how small the probability, that we missed something not encapsulated in the study or something in general. It’s just a problem with executing over empirical advice in general. It’s hard for me to state declaratively.
For example I think we could argue that the fact that these people exist to be studied means that there is a survivorship bias accordingly(for those that did not get studied are dead/did not show up) and that that weights the probabilities in the favor of the people who survived but if we evaluate the entire sample space(dead+alive) it would be in favor of parenting.
For us to ascertain with a greater degree of certainty we would need to pull out the big guns of statistics/probability in general to make sure we have done due diligence and only then after that we can conclude with certainty.
“I don’t think that’s true. Could you explain how the twin design requires that, keeping in mind the fundamental logic of the design?”
I think I covered this with my response and just wait for a follow-up response.
When someone says something with such strength that there is zero effect(ask him on twitter) that means there is no uncertainty and we know all relevant variables and have assigned probabilities and utility values to them(everything is known).
Could you link to the twitter post where he describes his position? Without a clear reference to the claim under debate this exercise isn’t useful.
“One of the greatest pieces of evidence demonstrating that the family/rearing environment has no effect on eventual outcomes is the absence of birth order effects. Birth order is an excellent test for these effects: it is something that systematically differs between siblings and is bona fide non-genetic (mostly). Hence, it’s a great way to see if childhood environment leaves any sort of mark on people.”
He is just straight up naively saying parenting has no effect and the consequential statement that any one can act as if this is completely true. This is not an exercise, this is trying to convince an actual person why he is wrong. I’ll ask him for a clarified picture right now.
Parenting is simply less important than most people think. But as with the issue with health and obesity, even individuals who understand the pervasiveness of nature and the apparent stochasticity of what we call “environment” like to believe there is some way they can exert control (see locus of control, courtesy Richard Harper).
One of the greatest pieces of evidence demonstrating that the family/rearing environment has no effect on eventual outcomes is the absence of birth order effects
The first comment is equally as strong. I’m having a running dialogue with him and he will come here and correct/clarify if necessary. Please focus on the topic at hand.
I’m not sure what that means, we are not talking about normal people we are talking about people like us who can adjust to this. The goal is to understand what the upper-end people think and how they use their advanced epistemology to run their hedges/beliefs accordingly. He seems to imply from his “You do not have free will” && “Parenting has no effect” stance that it is irrelevant.
I am trying to get an idea of an interval of where parenting is for the advanced people. Fixing disorders/adhd with medication from a parents perspective vs a parent who doesn’t will easily make a kid succeed.
ADHD meds are very effective while not being on them is very bad, so is teaching them valuable skills that other people do not know IS a good idea.
This style of conversation is important because the advantage of knowing even rudimentary decision theory gives you over say naive rationalism/‘traditional rationalism’/naive empiricism.
If you don’t understand what that means, than it would be useful to work on understanding. If you don’t understand the position of the person with whom you argue you can’t know whether or not you agree with them.
I am not trying to have a side conversation.
Clarifying where disagreement is isn’t a side conversation. Do you believe that there are meaningful differences in parenting quality of US middle class people? (When genetics are factored out)
Thanks for the reply
I’m saying in general with probabilistic inference not necessarily to twin study design. I think I worded it relatively poorly. I’m saying there is that is not necessarily encapsulated in the study because there would have to be some relatively exhaustive statistical machinery applied.
When someone says something with such strength that there is zero effect(ask him on twitter) that means there is no uncertainty and we know all relevant variables and have assigned probabilities and utility values to them(everything is known). Which is false. We do not know if we have missed something related to for , because we have not done exhaustive statistical studies on it. we probably only have so much empirical knowledge related to it. His statement is even stronger that there is no uncertainty, he is saying there is no risk to executing over the advice that parenting has no effect and therefore we can just go do whatever we want with parenting. Which is equivalent to assigning the utilities to all equal zero or the integral to zero.
He is saying there is neither uncertainty, nor risk. A bit long winded, I think I might ask Mrs.Mayo if I have it right.
To say a statement with such strength of
and that it is advice that could be executed over, say ten thousand people stop parenting their kids would mean that any negative effects that were not captured in the study would be realized no matter how small the probability, that we missed something not encapsulated in the study or something in general. It’s just a problem with executing over empirical advice in general. It’s hard for me to state declaratively.
For example I think we could argue that the fact that these people exist to be studied means that there is a survivorship bias accordingly(for those that did not get studied are dead/did not show up) and that that weights the probabilities in the favor of the people who survived but if we evaluate the entire sample space(dead+alive) it would be in favor of parenting.
For us to ascertain with a greater degree of certainty we would need to pull out the big guns of statistics/probability in general to make sure we have done due diligence and only then after that we can conclude with certainty.
I think I covered this with my response and just wait for a follow-up response.
Could you link to the twitter post where he describes his position? Without a clear reference to the claim under debate this exercise isn’t useful.
He is just straight up naively saying parenting has no effect and the consequential statement that any one can act as if this is completely true. This is not an exercise, this is trying to convince an actual person why he is wrong. I’ll ask him for a clarified picture right now.
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/category/parenting-2/ https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/12/21/iq-and-birth-order-effects-real-no/
That’s different then claiming that the effect is zero and that you can completely mess it up without bad effects.
The first comment is equally as strong. I’m having a running dialogue with him and he will come here and correct/clarify if necessary. Please focus on the topic at hand.
For once can we actually have a discussion?
edit: https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/no-you-dont-have-free-will-and-this-is-why/
My framing is coherent and correct
editedit: he said read this post https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/the-son-becomes-the-father/
When the goal is to focus on the topic at hand it’s vital to understand the position on the participants.
Do you agree with the claim “Parenting is simply less important than most people think”?
I’m not sure what that means, we are not talking about normal people we are talking about people like us who can adjust to this. The goal is to understand what the upper-end people think and how they use their advanced epistemology to run their hedges/beliefs accordingly. He seems to imply from his “You do not have free will” && “Parenting has no effect” stance that it is irrelevant.
I am trying to get an idea of an interval of where parenting is for the advanced people. Fixing disorders/adhd with medication from a parents perspective vs a parent who doesn’t will easily make a kid succeed.
ADHD meds are very effective while not being on them is very bad, so is teaching them valuable skills that other people do not know IS a good idea.
This style of conversation is important because the advantage of knowing even rudimentary decision theory gives you over say naive rationalism/‘traditional rationalism’/naive empiricism.
If you don’t understand what that means, than it would be useful to work on understanding. If you don’t understand the position of the person with whom you argue you can’t know whether or not you agree with them.
Clarifying where disagreement is isn’t a side conversation. Do you believe that there are meaningful differences in parenting quality of US middle class people? (When genetics are factored out)
I don’t agree that it is relevant and it skewers the conversation in a direction that I do not think is important or obscures the discussion.