I will try to clarify points when I see them missed. This should not be interpreted as me siding with you in the debate, necessarily.
This was not one of my favorite posts on the site, but I did find it interesting—and, more particularly, I think there is space nearby for more interesting things. I think where I most strongly disagree with you is your classification (mentioned a few places) of this as dating advice at all. I see it as more of a case study in the exercise of rationality.
That rationality itself doesn’t care about sexuality, therefor, cuts both ways. If we are going to examine Luke’s rationality, we look at the evidence he has acquired and how he has turned that into conclusions. The conclusions are therefor material, but are not themselves the point of the post. In this case, it is a feature of that evidence that it was drawn from a skewed sample; it would not necessarily be better for Luke to generalize to cases excluded from sampling. While there are certainly other ways in which the sampling was nonuniform, this was a big, clear, intentional one and it makes sense to note it.
Bingo :)
I will try to clarify points when I see them missed. This should not be interpreted as me siding with you in the debate, necessarily.
This was not one of my favorite posts on the site, but I did find it interesting—and, more particularly, I think there is space nearby for more interesting things. I think where I most strongly disagree with you is your classification (mentioned a few places) of this as dating advice at all. I see it as more of a case study in the exercise of rationality.
That rationality itself doesn’t care about sexuality, therefor, cuts both ways. If we are going to examine Luke’s rationality, we look at the evidence he has acquired and how he has turned that into conclusions. The conclusions are therefor material, but are not themselves the point of the post. In this case, it is a feature of that evidence that it was drawn from a skewed sample; it would not necessarily be better for Luke to generalize to cases excluded from sampling. While there are certainly other ways in which the sampling was nonuniform, this was a big, clear, intentional one and it makes sense to note it.
Seriously? I’m being down voted for confirming that somebody else had the correct interpretation of what I said? o.o
This kind of moral outrage is a bad reaction to have to voting.
That’s not outrage, that’s genuine confusion.
My apologies.
Why is this being downvoted? I’d be confused too.