If I remember correctly username2 is a shared account, so the person are talking to now might not be whom you have had previously conversed with. Just thought you should know because I don’t want you to mistake the account with a static person.
niceguyanon
Karma: 813
It was but it speaks of his underlying ideas and character to even be in the position to do that.
What do you mean by this? Assuming its a joke, why does it speaks to his character and underlying ideas; why would it, it wasn’t meant for you to take seriously.
What would you want me to respond, if at all?
Probably not at all.
Why I think people are not engaging you. But don’t take this as a criticism of your ideas or questions.
You have been strongly associated with a certain movement, and people might not want to engage you in conversation even on different topics, because they are afraid your true intention is to lead the conversation back to ideas that they didn’t want to talk with you about in the first place.
I think username2 was making a non-serious cheeky comment which went over your head and you responded with a wall of text touching on several ideas. People sometimes just want small exchanges and they have no confidence in you to keep exchanges short.
Agreeing with the sentiment that people probably aren’t engaging with this question because it’s too tiresome to summarize all the information that is available, and what is available is probably incomplete as well. By asking such a broad question rather than a narrower, specific, or applied question, you won’t get many responses.
Do we have the same definition of a troll? Just wondering because the term seems to have drifted and I wonder where I stand. One sided flaming is what I would call it, because the person is hostile and insulting, resulting from emotional discussion. IMO Trolling requires the deliberate intent to provoke, as if that was his whole reason to post here. It’s more likely that this person is dead serious, but socially inept (too strong?)
This person has written volumes of stuff in various places for years, seems unlikely that he’s just messing with people for amusement. More likely that he is a true believer, just really bad at communication. I’d say Lumifer is lightly trolling (somewhat acceptably) because he is egging this person on, knowing full well that this person will make a spectacle of themselves.
Is it possible to use moderation tools to hide the parent comment or move it. It doesn’t even belong here and others have been nice enough to offer good feedback regardless. This is a welcome thread, and it’s being derailed with bizarre behavior.
I suspect it degrades the quality of the site…
Your first paragraph venting your frustration at the 2 karma rule was unnecessary, but cool you realized that.
I think this post is fine as an Open Thread or as an introduction post. I don’t see why it is necessary for its own discussion. Plus it seems like you are making an article stating that you will make an article. I don’t think you need to do that. Just come right out and say what you have to say.
I have the same question as this OP. I didn’t think any of the answers were helpful enough. Basically everything I could find regarding Assange’s asylum with Ecuador stems from the threat of Sweden extraditing him to the U.S., however the threat of politically motivated deportation remains regardless of what happens in Sweden; the U.K. can just as well do it.
I don’t know what to think about Ego Depletion. When I first read about it, it felt quite intuitive and the research on it was robust. It came up everywhere I read. Then the whole replication crisis thing happened and serious doubts were cast on it. I updated towards a weaker effect.
I haven’t given it much thought since, until I was recently reminded of the study about mental fatigue on parole board judges and how chances of granting parole were greatest at the beginning of the work day and right after a food break(replenish mental resources).
If Ego Depletion is weak at best then what is going on with the parole study? My current epistemic status is that the effect is real and not debunked; but the effect may not be as universal (good for predicting parole and not so good for contrived cognitive experiments).
Being smart can make you more susceptible to some biases.
Agree but Dominic is making a much stronger claim in this excerpt, and I wish he would provide more evidence. It is a big claim that
the more educated are prone to irrational political opinions
average incomes are less likely to express political opinions to send signals.
These are great anecdotes but have there been any studies indicating a link between social status and willingness to express political views?
You have been noticeably not commenting. Care to comment why?
At this point, it seems like if it was written about in Cialdini’s Influence, you can safely assume it’s not real.
How well has the ideas presented in Cialdini’s book held up? Scarcity heuristic, Physical attractiveness stereotype, and Reciprocity I thought were pretty solid and hasn’t come under scrutiny, yet at least.
I understand your criticism much better now.
The endowment effect, or priming, maps pretty well to a lab.
Are you saying that cognitive biases like endowment effect and priming map better to lab settings therefore are less susceptible to contrived experiments to prove them like ego depletion?
I don’t know whether or not these map well to a lab or not, but priming research is one of the major areas under going a replication crisis; not sure about the endowment effect.
Is your objection really that the topic has no relevance to LW or that because the information is found in so many other places that it has no relevance?
I appreciate summaries on LW even if they are found elsewhere because it provides for comments and discussion from a very particular group whose input which I prioritize(over other internet strangers). I often do a quick search on LW for new ideas I am exposed to, to get the LW spin. Say you just discovered this forum and you decided you like how everyone aspires to be a rationalist, but you have gaps in your knowledge about cults, this article might be far more informational than what you can find on a Google search. A Google search on cults leads to lots of websites on christian apologetics, not exactly the places I would encourage people to go to find truth. The information can be found in thousands of places but the places matter– a rationality oriented forum vs a website you are not quite sure of it’s motives.
They have confirmed it is AlphaGo.
Could you provide a simple linkage as to why the effect(less I know, easier it seems for the other specialized person) is a consequence of the availability bias?
One connection I could draw from the effect to the availability bias is the ease of recall of the less specialized person of successful resolutions of the specialized person. For example, a manager who has numerous recollections of being presented a problem and assigning it to the subordinate for a fix. The manager only sees the problem and the eventual fix, and none of the difficult roadblocks encountered by the workers, therefore the manager tends to underestimate the difficulty. I’m not sure if this is a connection you would agree with.
Well it would certainly help me if all these Econo-technological optimists who took that survey speak up and tell me what they think about UBI please!
But I thank you for your simple linkage.
This means you’re surprised that people who think that the economic growth will be high are strong supporters of basic income.
Yes!
I can propose a simple linkage as to why this is so: the no-stagnation people are (technological) optimists. They believe that in the near future there will be plenty of value/money/goods—enough for everyone. If so, in this environment of plenty it makes sense to provide a UBI to everyone.
That is what I am trying to figure out; is this what they think? I have never encountered that way of thinking before, hence why I would be confused. It would seem to me that technological optimists predicting a future of plenty for everyone, would think it makes no sense to provide UBI.
Why the idea of economic well-being remaining the same supports the basic income proposal?
Wait isn’t that the point? I’m not saying basic income will or will not work, just that the idea of economic well-being remaining the same or perhaps worse, might already be an undesirable outcome for those that strongly support basic income?
Agree, and I think this is a really important and overlooked implication, that two tribes will talk past each other on. Unfair discrimination persists even with rational, non-racist, greedy capitalist.
A less charged example would be life insurance policies. Almost everyone would agree that mortality tables are acceptable; almost everyone could also imagine themselves getting older, and could imagine themselves as above average with in their group. The insurer will rationally charge the older group more premium. Atypical healthier older people within this group have experience unfair discrimination and the insurer is rationally non-prejudiced.
So when one tribe says that markets will punish racist, it doesn’t fix unfair discrimination. And when other tribe says that there is unfair discrimination, that doesn’t mean there is rampant racism. I personally feel a lot of compassion towards atypical individuals within a disadvantaged group, but how could we improve?