Are you aiming to convince or to actually check whether it holds?
Дмитрий Зеленский
Karma: 25
Offer an alternative hypothesis. “A fair fight”, as HPMoR puts it. To understand if it’s valid, you need to be able to imagine both a world in which it is and a world in which it isn’t and outline what the differences would be.
It’s a great post in that it seemingly tries to engage with the question in true faith. That said…
We don’t ask people on how they come to their datapoints because we can’t trust their answers. That kind of introspection is deeply unreliable in most people, they (we) aren’t, in this respect, enough of a lens that can see its flaws. That’s why Big Five questions skipped that, not by careless omission as your post seems to imply. The MBTI-type cognitive function gears would be “big if true”, but most big if true models are wrong, and not just in a technical sense of “all models are wrong, some models are useful”, but in failure to properly connect to reality by providing wrong compressions; the post provides literally no arguments for why these are useful gears.
That [organizational] culture can and does change.
You asked to notify you for things the previous texts failed to lay the groundwork, so here it is. The previous discussion largely looked as if it’s static and self-supporting, aside from a couple of examples of how organizations jumped to being mazes as they grew. I feel like this is partially related—but distinct from—this, but getting your own perspective on when it can vs. can’t change (not in the case of heroic efforts where you basically uproot everything because I presume that’s not what you meant by this) could be useful.
That’s an ingenious solution! I still feel like there’s some catch here but can’t formulate it. Maybe because it’s way past midnight here and I should just go to sleep.
“Can you try passing my ITT, so that I can see where I’ve miscommunicated?”
...is a very difficult task even by standards of “good discourse requires energy”. To present anything but a strawman in such case may require more time than the general discussion—not necessarily because your model actually is a strawman but because you’d need to “dot many i’s and cross many t’s”—I think that’s the wording.
(ETA: It seems to me like it is directly related to obeying your tenth guideline.)
I love the description, sounds compelling, should actually read the book :D
Extremely late to the party but that’s the whole idea of ecological validity (which sucks: https://omer.lingsite.org/blogpost-ecological-validity/).
Agreed. As a linguist, I looked at the Proposition 2 and immediately thought “sketchy, shouldn’t hold in a good model of a language model”.
Personally, I am caring about the former but not about the latter in your Julia Galef quote… “Due process” seems largely a way to abuse loopholes, and in this, give the upper hand to the more professional lawyer rather than the correct side. Due process makes argument less valid, in a way.
EXTREMELY late to the party, but I have to warn a potential lurker against Lakoff’s book as a linguist. His stories are extremely just-so-stories—or even just-not-so-stories.
So, you believe that “It’s dangerous to be half a Rationalist”. Literally part of the sequences by now. A good thought but probably shared by many here by now :)
so the total burden of the ~6000ish marijuana imprisonments each year is 3 * ~6000 * 0.5 = 10 kiloQALYs.
Clearly “1/3 * 6000 * 0.5 = 10” is meant?
Hey… the post links to tenth footnote instead of this one. (Also, no, the Sun seems at the somewhat low end of brightness?)
It’s not. It’s really-really not. Having a switching ovo-testis is, while not cheap, far cheaper than a set of parallel organs which commit literally contradictory effects on your body simultaneously. Like, if we take humans, gestagen is used for chemical castration for a reason.
Evolution sucks at long term though—that’s essentially your 4: they would be outselected before they would be frequent enough.
However, the “hermaphroditism is only found widely where, for one reason or another, finding a partner and finding them to be wrong sex can be really fatal” (sessile plants, slow snails) suggests it must be very costly indeed, and I’d bet on “simple” metabolic explanation: these adapted organs directly compete in terms of their influence on the body.
Oh, there are many. One, MBTI supposes the functions are antagonistic in very specific ways, so null hypothesis is absence of those antagonistic pairings even if the functions themselves are as it says. Two, each cutting out of a function is a subhypothesis of clustering the thingspace (in this case, cognitionspace), and the null hypothesis is that it doesn’t cut at reality’s joints.