What do you think of this observation, which Leah McElrath recently promoted a second time? Here are some other tweets that she’s made, on January 21 & 26, 2020:
https://twitter.com/leahmcelrath/status/1219693585731391489
https://twitter.com/leahmcelrath/status/1221316758281293825
Bonus link: https://twitter.com/gwensnyderPHL/status/1479166811220414464
Yes. There’s a reason why I would specifically tell young people not to refrain from action because they fear other students’ reactions, but I emphatically wouldn’t tell them to ignore fear or go against it in general.
Really! I just encountered this feature, and have been more reluctant to agree than to upvote. Admittedly, the topic has mostly concerned conversations which I didn’t hear.
Not sure what you just said, but according to the aforementioned physics teacher people have absolutely brought beer money, recruited a bunch of guys, and had them move giant rocks around in a manner consistent with the non-crazy theory of pyramid construction. (I guess the brand of beer used might count as “modern technology,” and perhaps the quarry tools, but I doubt the rest of it did.) You don’t, in fact, need to build a full pyramid to refute crackpot claims.
I just summarized part of it, and was downvoted for doing so. Have you tried to correct that and encourage me numerically?
Ahem. You cannot argue neurotypicals into being neurodivergent, period. If they cared about logic and fairness, they’d already be allistic ND, almost by definition.
Ahem. As with F=ma (I think) it’s not so much wrong, or useless, as asking the wrong question on a different level.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1368966115804598275.html
When Scott pointed out (for the first time, AFAICT) that Vassar is a dangerous person in the orbit of this community, it was the second report about such a person in as many weeks. This doesn’t look to me like a pair of isolated incidents. It looks like part of a pattern.
Therefore, while your technique sounds like a good one in isolation, I suspect you’re encouraging your overwhelmingly neurodivergent audience to double down on their inherent flaws, making these worse. (Another clue here is the fact that actions which could be ‘justified’ under very different models could be dishonest, or they could be plain old expected value maximization.) The added suggestion to think of an experiment to distinguish between hypotheses—indeed, the idea of doing anything at all—is a good addition.
I should note that, as an outsider, the main point I recall Eliezer making in that vein is that he used Michael Vassar as a model for the character who was called Professor Quirrell. As an outsider, I didn’t see that as an unqualified endorsement—though I think your general message should be signal-boosted.
That the same 50% of the unwilling believe both that vaccines have been shown to cause autism and that the US government is using them to microchip the population is suggestive that such people are not processing such statements as containing words that possess meanings.
Yes, but you’re missing the obvious. Respondents don’t have a predictive model that literally says Bill Gates wants to inject them with a tracking microchip. They do, however, have a rational expectation that he or his company will hurt them in some technical way, which they find wholly opaque.
Likewise: do you think that the mistake you mention stemmed from your impatience, which makes you seem blasé about the lives of immunocompromised people like myself? Because, those lawmakers you chose to bully were all vaccinated, so they were engaging in the exact same behavior you just criticized LA for trying to ban. You also just implied, earlier in the post, that if people were less impatient, we’d be largely done.
What do you believe would happen to a neurotypical forced to have self-awareness and a more accurate model of reality in general?
The idea that they become allistic neurodivergents like me is, of course, a suspicious conclusion, but I’m not sure I see a credible alternative. CEV seems like an inherently neurodivergent idea, in the sense that forcing people (or their extrapolated selves) to engage in analysis is baked into the concept.
It’s suspicious, but I think people’s views from long ago on whether or not they would commit suicide are very weak evidence.
Also, we know for a fact the FBI threatened Martin Luther King, Jr, and I don’t think they wound up killing him?
Twitter is saying there’s literally a Delta Plus variant already. We don’t know what it does.
we can probably figure something out that holds onto the majority of the future’s value, and it’s unlikely that we all die’ camp
This disturbs me the most. I don’t trust their ability to distinguish “the majority of the future’s value,” from “the Thing you just made thinks Thamiel is an amateur.”
Hopefully, similar reasoning accounts for the bulk of the fourth camp.
How likely is it that a research lab finds a new bat coronavirus and then before publishing anything about it, decides that it’s the perfect testbed for dramatic gain of function research?
In China? We’re talking about a virus based on RNA, which mutates more easily, making it harder to control. China’s government craves control to the point of trying to censor all mentions of Winnie the Pooh, possibly because a loss of control could mean the guillotine.
And you also want, in that last tweet, to put (at least some of) the burden on these random institutions to then allocate the vaccine based on who has suffered disproportionately? While also obeying all the official restrictions or else, and also when did that become a priority?
You know that we decide which groups are at risk largely by looking at how they’ve died or suffered so far. Presumably she’s hoping we protect people who otherwise seem likely to die, since her remarks seem sensible given her premises.
You’re not exactly wrong, but OP does tell us people are being irrational in ways that you could use to get cold hard cash.
People who have more difficulty than most—like me* - in losing weight constitute about 20% of the community. The hard cases are quite rare.
What? What community? My impression is that, if people try to lose weight, the expected result is for them to become more unhealthy due to weight fluctuation. It’s not that they’ll “have difficulty losing weight,” rather their weight will go up and down in a way that harms their health or their expected lifespans. I thought I read statements by Scott—an actual doctor, we think—supporting this. Are you actually disputing the premise? If so, where’d you get the data?
I would actually give concrete evidence in favor of what I think you’re calling “Philosophy,” although of course there’s not much dramatic evidence we’d expect to see if the theory is wholly true.
Here, however, is a YouTube video that should really be called, Why AI May Already Be Killing You. It uses hard data to show that an algorithm accidentally created real-world money and power, that it did so by working just as intended in the narrowest sense, and that its creators opposed the logical result so much that they actively tried to stop it. (Of course, this last point had to do with their own immediate profits, not the long-term effects.)
I’d be mildly surprised, but not shocked, to find that this creation of real-world power has already unbalanced US politics, in a way which could still destroy our civilization.