Yes, but a d2 has the values 1, and 2, not heads and tails.
Kingreaper
Karma: 1,282
He’s rolling a die. As such, both “possibilities” are overwhelmingly improbable, as I have never seen a die labeled with heads and tails, and I spend a lot of time around dice.
There are arguments that valuing net-happiness IN OUR CURRENT WORLD means you’d want to increase the human population.
However, in an arbitrary world, where wealth-production correlates with human population, there’s no reason to assume that net-happiness would also correlate with wealth-production.
IOW: his conclusion (it’s not a shame) has a truth value that depends on value system, but his reasoning is true only if you have one, very specific, value system (you value near-future-wealth-production as your terminal value)
This is true IFF you value wealth above all other measures.
If you value net-happiness for example, it’s not true.
The Oxford Dictionary definition you supply is the one I generally see in use:
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Thanks for the information, I might ask my GP about that possibility, and whether there are any options for finding out whether I’m having low-blood-pressure issues.
I suffer from a form of depression, which comes along with a symptom I call “brain-ache”: it essentially consists of a sharp pain that feels as though it’s internal to my brain (unlike headaches, which I also commonly get, which are focused in my skull).
Brain-ache is worsened by deliberate conscious thinking, and trying to focus on things, and it is generally accompanied by a “mental fog” which makes it hard for me to see my own thoughts, and therefore hard to think about anything complex.
I have a few other pecularities [photic sneeze reflex, I used to cough instead of crying (that was a conditioned reflex due to abuse) and occasional verbal tics] but most are relatively minor.
Oh, yes, I can have full conversations in my sleep, that I don’t remember in the morning. This includes answering the phone. This is a recent symptom, probably due to my current medication.
One possible explanation is simply awareness.
If you naturally develop a technique, you may not be consciously aware of it at all. But take some training, and all of a sudden your conscious brain is butting in going “this is the way to do it”.
And, well, your CPU is going to be less efficient than a well-optimised RPU (Reading Processing Unit)
Why would this apply to romantic forays but not other types of social overture?
The fact that chatting to random people merely means you’re willing to let anyone be one of your acquaintances
In general, being someone’s acquaintance cannot be considered an exclusive group to begin with, so there was no exclusivity to be lost.
It seems like it(becoming known as a person who tries to chat up random people) would happen no matter what you actually talked about.
If you only rarely* make a sexual or romantic pass it is unlikely that people would view you in such a way. Especially if you approach people who are not of your preferred gender, etc..
*[when you find someone who is actually particularly attractive to you, after you’ve gotten to know them a bit]
I live in Manchester, England.
There are 2.6 million people in this city. I didn’t need to actively avoid becoming known, it would have been extremely difficult to become known.
Also: had I gained a reputation for talking to random strangers, why would that have been a bad thing? The person I approach knows I approach random strangers; they are one.
Being known as a person who tries to chat up random people may be a problem*. Being known as a person who tries to chat to random people isn’t. In fact, if anything, I’ve earned status for it.@
*You’re seen as having low standards, and therefore the fact you’re interested in someone no longer puts them in an exclusive group. Oh, and you may end up viewed as a slut.
@I have friends with low social skills, who find it too scary to approach people they don’t know. The fact I do so gives me a certain amount of esteem in their eyes.
Envy is an attitude/emotion.
Whether or not someone feels envy is a fact.
Pain is a feeling.
Whether or not someone feels pain is a fact.
Ummm, Eliezer Yudkowsky’s post, on which this discussion is based, is about “What can’t we say?” ie. why can’t we say there are racial differences in IQ.
So this thread doesn’t seem to be evidence against Nisan’s statement.
What makes you so sure anyone’s playing for power in my scenario?
Bob is attempting to solve a problem that’s causing both Alice and Bob suffering.
Alice may be playing for power, or she may not want to burden Bob with her personal problems, and may be honestly unaware that she’s causing Bob to suffer.
As a side note: in several of these scenarios I saw, Alice was male. In several, Bob was female.
Given as everyone seems to want to pile unjustified extra assumptions onto the scenario, here are several actual scenarios that I know have occured that took this form:
Alice is angry/upset because of something Bob did. Bob is unaware of what he did, but has picked up on Alice’s anger and wants to help her. a. Alice is trying to convince herself that it doesn’t matter. -----b. Alice thinks Bob knowing what caused her anger will cause further problems.
Alice wasn’t actually angry/upset at all. Bob believed she was, but was incorrect. His repeated questioning has resulted in her getting angry; making him more confident that there is a problem.
Alice is emotionally abusing Bob, manipulating him so that he will grovel for an explanation, such that when she tells him what she wants him to do, he’ll be forced to do it.
Alice is angry at Bob for something he did. Bob is aware what this is, but wants to pretend he isn’t in order to be able to make Alice feel as though she’s over-reacting
Alice is angry/upset for reasons that have nothing to do with Bob. Bob is concerned for Alice’s wellbeing, but Alice doesn’t want to share.
Alice is angry. Bob knows this, but Alice is actually, honestly, unaware of this fact.
I’ve seen this scenario occur several times where Bob HASN’T done anything wrong. Alice is annoyed for some reason, and is passive aggressively taking it out on Bob, and Bob wants to solve the problem that’s causing them both to suffer.
The assumption that it’s Bobs fault is entirely unjustified from the scenario presented.
The problem is the repeatability. Social skills, by their very nature, require interaction with people. And people are unpredictable; at least, until you have good enough social skills :p.
The closest I can come to an exercise regime suggestion* is to go into bars, coffee shops, or other gathering places; and look around for a person (or people) who seems bored, lonely, or otherwise in need of company.
Go up to said person(s) and greet them in a manner you deem appropriate. If it works; you just correctly judged someone’s state, you approached them in an acceptable manner, and you now get to converse with them (giving you practise on other social skills). If not; consider why not? Did you misread their state? Did you approach them in an unacceptable manner? What should you try differently next time?
*(and something I actually did, that seemed to help me personally: in fact I met my girlfriend due to this practise)
Why shouldn’t it be highly voted? When you’re talking to a random outsider, and want to demonstrate the usefulness of bayesian techniques, using the example of clippy is a funny, and interesting, way to make your point.
As such, this is a valuable contribution for anyone who might, at some point, want to convert someone to bayesian techniques.
Given that it takes very little time to read, this means that it’s value:time ratio is very good. As it is a discussion post, rather than a main post, this is sufficient justification to upvote it.*
*(with a main post I’d also expect a significant amount of content)
Can’t you also have a 60 minute study, with no safety buffer, by using the “personal max” option on a flat road?
Certainly seems like that’d work to me.
I don’t see why this is necessarily a problem.
The claim that the mugger will torture 3^^^3 people, unless you give them $100, is so implausible that there should be no possible evidence that will convince you of it.
Any possible evidence is more plausibly explained by possibilities such as you being in a computer game, and the mugger being a player who’s just being a dick because they find it funny.