It’s not stupid as it stands. It is however rather lacking in the specifics it’d need to evaluate it.
lmn
Karma: 34
I’m currently atheist; my deconversion was quite the unremarkable event. September 2015 (I discovered HPMOR in February and RAZ then or in March), I was doing research on logical fallacies to better argue my points for a manga forum, when I came across Rational Wiki; for several of the logical fallacies, they tended to use creationists as examples. One thing lead to another (I was curious why Christianity was being so hated, and researched more on the site)
So you came to a pseudo-rationalist cite, (you will find the opinion of Rational Wiki around here is much lower than the of Christianity) discovered that your beliefs are unpopular in certain circles, and decided to change them to fit in.
Honestly, why does it seem like every deconversion narrative I’ve read always has the stupidest reasons for it?
subsidized egg freezing and childcare
Fertility is inversely correlated with income, the problem isn’t that people don’t have enough money, the problem is that in some sense they don’t want children. I think a better approach would be cultural changes that make it high status to have lot’s of children.
I don’t think that is a correct summary of the essay at all, which is really pointing to a problem with how we think about coordination.
True, his point that Bayesians should be able to overcome these coordination problems by doing X, Y, and Z. Except neither him nor anyone else has should any interest in actually making an effort to do X, Y, and Z.
For starters the fact that Sparta actually won.
Unfortunately, analogies with Greek city states are wasted on me, because I don’t have enough knowledge about them to make deep connections. For example, how specifically did Athens solve the problem of refugees bringing their own culture, sometimes incompatible with the original values of Athens?
Citizenship, and hence the right to vote, was restricted to people both whose parents were citizens.
Or whichever wikipedia admin is watching those pages won’t permit criticism.
Surely, the brain is important, but humans exist 200 000 years on earth, and civilisation exists only 5 000 years. So something changed not only in the brain.
And neural nets existed for ~500 million years.
However, the likelihood ratio (P(B|A)/P(B|~A)), a.k.a., the quantity you actually care about when updating on new evidence, is symmetric.
A kind of causation. X implies Y.
You seem to be confusing causation and “evidence for” implication. DON’T. Wet streets are evidence for rain, but when streets do not cause rain.
Magnitude—Is the criticism too harsh, does it point to something completely unlike the original proposal, or otherwise require changes that aren’t feasible for the generator to make?
I’m confused, I thought the point was to avoid getting stuck in local maxima. Discouraging criticisms that are too harsh or demand too many changes sees a weird way of doing that.
I thought the standard explanation for why smart people wear glasses is that smart people are likely to spend more time reading books, which isn’t that good for one’s eyes. Conversely, if one is nearsighted one will have an easier time reading books than playing sports, and so is likely to at least become more knowledgeable.
A stereotype is a relation of the form X ⇒ Y. It maps a class of people/individuals/what have you to a property X. For example, people who wear glasses are smart. Occasionally, some individuals may conceive the relation as Y ⇔ X. E.g. Smart people wear glasses. I suspect this is due to reasons unrelated to the stereotype (e.g. inability to distinguish between ’=>’ and ’<=>’). I hope this is not common among the general population—the average human can’t be that irrational, right? I shall give a charitable interpretation of the masses, and discuss only the relation ‘X ⇒ Y’.
It would be better to think of it as X correlates with Y, or X is evidence for Y. And unlike your ⇒ relation, which you never adequately specified, these two relations are symmetric.
Then explain the grandparent.
Or do you simply like to virtue signal by selectively forgetting it?
Also stuff like this.
And you think your concern trolling is contributing to reasonable discourse?
appeals to exaggerated risks like ‘may rob/rape/kill you anytime of day or night’.
Except that risk is not in fact exaggerated.
Basically, you’re accusing me of outright lying that I think that argument is quite badly written, and instead being blindly partisan.
Here’s an idea. If you don’t want to be accused of outright lying and being blindly partisan, try not outright lying and not being blindly partisan. Crazy idea, huh?
If by “some” you literally meant nothing but “more than zero”, fine. (But “some” people get harsh sentences for pretty much anything, so “some people get harsh sentences for X” is not very informative about how little X is tolerated.)
So you consider harsh sentences for pointing out true facts about migrant behavior to be reasonable as long as it only happens to “some” people? You may want to learn about how chilling effects on free speech work.
in most western European countries some who says something mean about the migrants gets a harsher sentence
Bullshit. Yes, I know, there are cherries you can pick. Still bullshit.
basically you’re conceding I’m right
LOL. You wish. Work on your reading comprehension, maybe?
If what I said about people getting harsher sentences for saying mean things about migrants than migrants engaging in rape was really “bullshit”, you wouldn’t have to engage in accusations of “cherry-picking” to pre-dissmiss any evidence. As if there is any reason for any sentence for saying mean things about migrants to be worse than the sentence for rape.
they are in fact robbing, killing, and raping people
Just like the the natives :-/
There is a significant qualitative difference in amount here.
in most western European countries some who says something mean about the migrants gets a harsher sentence
Bullshit. Yes, I know, there are cherries you can pick. Still bullshit.
So basically you’re conceding I’m right, but still want to call bullshit on it. Sounds like a classic sign of cognitive dissonance.
Japan is leading the way on the “we don’t reproduce and no immigrants are allowed” path. Wait a bit and things will become clearer.
Well, so far they aren’t experiencing a huge increase rape and general crime.
For example you wrote:
Which arguments and which factual claims?