You know, it would be interesting if Yvain had put something else there just to see how many people would try to cheat.
Omegaile
Karma: 204
Time on Less Wrong/IQ: -.164 (492)
Wait, this means that reading less wrong makes you dumber!
Hmmm, there was something about correlation and causation… but I don’t remember it well. I must be spending too much time on less wrong.
I felt so rebel giving passwords right above Google’s message:
Never submit passwords through Google Forms
There aren’t enough interesting sequences of 40 coinflips to ever see one.
Every sequence of 40 coin flips is interesting. Proof: Make a 1 to 1 relation on the sequence of 40 coin flips and a subset of the natural numbers, by making H=1 and T=0 and reading the sequence as a binary representation. Proceed by showing that every natural number is interesting.
So they are building their reputation on their marketing skills, not on the future.
That quote seems to be very good in making idiots who think they are not (the majority) to behave like idiots.
At the moment I feel like health isn’t as important as good reinforcement
You traded HP for XP.
Math is a significant topic!
I think the blog post was basically speaking in favor of the charity principle.
That’s a really insightful comment!
But I should correct you, that you are only talking about the Spanish conquest, not the Portuguese, since 1) Mesoamerica was not conquered by the Portuguese; 2) Portuguese possessions in America (AKA Brazil) had very little gold and silver, which was only discovered much later, when it was already in Portuguese domain.
Someone in Sweden apparently did
People tend to conform to it’s peers values.
Lets abstract about this:
There are 2 unfair coins. One has P(heads)=1/3 and the other P(heads)=2/3. I take one of them, flip twice and it turns heads twice. Now I believe that the coin chosen was the one with P(heads)=2/3. In fact there are 4⁄5 likelihood of being so. I also believe that flipping again will turn heads again, mostly because I think that I choose the 2⁄3 heads coin (p=8/15). I also admit the possibility of getting heads but being wrong about the chosen coin, but this is much less likely (p=1/15). So I bet on heads. So I flip it again and it turns heads. I was right. But it turns out that the coin was the other one, the one with P(heads)=1/3 (which I found after a few hundreds flips). Would you say I was right for the wrong reasons? Well I was certainly surprised to find out I had the wrong coin. Does this apply for the Gettier problem?
Lets go back to the original problem to see that this abstraction is similar. Smith believes “the person who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket”. And he does that mostly because he thinks Jones will get it and has ten coins. But if he is reasonable, he will also admit the possibility of he getting the job and also having ten coins, although with lower probability.
My point here is: at which probability the Gettier problem arises? Would it arises if in the coin problem P(heads) was different?
I think the only problem with the article is that it tries to otheroptimize. It seems to address a problem that the author had, as some people do. He seems to overestimate the usefulness of his advices though (he writes for anyone except if “your career is going great, you’re thrilled with your life and you’re happy with your relationships”). As mentioned by NancyLebovitz, the article is not for the clinical depressed, in fact it is only for a small (?) set of people who sits around all day whining, who thinks they deserve better for who they are, without actually trying to improve the situation.
That said, this over generalization is a problem that permeates most self help, and the article is not more guilty than the average.
I think I have heard of such studies, but the conclusion is different.
Who the parents are matter more than things like which school do the kids go, or in which neighborhood they live, etc.
But in my view, that’s only because being something (let’s say, a sportsman), will makes you do things that influence your kids to pursue a similar path
If you could eliminate all human flaws, you would end up with something more intelligent than the most intelligent human that has ever lived
This seems true...but it doesn’t argue against a bounded intelligence, just that the bound is very far.
“Bias” has a strict definition. Not all errors are biases. One can clearly be wrong and rational, for example, by not gathering enough information (laziness, or lack of time...).
This method of reducing bias only works for rational decisions using your current utility. Otherwise you will be prone to circular decisions like those you describe (decisions that feed themselves).
I would like to upvote the Feynman quote. I am not interested in upvoting the Stephenson quote.
I would like to upvote the Stephenson quote, and not the Feynman quote.
You two talk between yourselves so that only one of you upvote the entire comment.
I know that. People are so lame. Not me though. I am one of the genius ones.