Girard’s original texts concerning this is magnificent. Everyone needs to know more about Girard.
SanguineEmpiricist
Karma: −47
It’s hard to explain, i’ll edit it in later if I think of a good explanation.
It’s just the overly pedantic style complimented by a lovely personality and the passive framing. It has to do with the organizational style as well, maybe a bit too spruced up? Don’t let me get you down though, I didn’t mean it like that.
I would say that one of the biggest things that changed is the fact that there are too many posts like the one i’m responding to. I’m not sure what it is, but i think most others can see it.
The wrong thing to link to is the “typical mind fallacy”.
Bishop built real analysis constructively right? Jayne’s probability theory is from finite sets as well.
I agree with this, they saved the west.
I think if we just added a table for synonyms and have and a few more we would be good.
Part of the reason it is losing steam is there is a small quantity of posters that post wayyyy too much using up everyone’s time and they hardly contribute anything. Too many contrarians.
We have a lot of regular haters that could use some toning down.
Now that’s interesting! Discussing governance structures capable of resolving these kinds of situations when they come up? Also very interesting. Discussing the current problem? Not really very interesting at all.
Then just start talking about it. I’m very happy to respond and talk about stuff like that, it definitely does sound interesting.
How come we can talk about fiction threads and risk in far mode but not this? Even if it is a political situation we can still discuss it. We talk about all sorts of x-risk this and that, I think it’s more than alright to discussion a drought affecting where the most of us live.
I mean minimally we could just talk about it to get the word out. I think people are being pretty unreasonable here.
trying to educate those who should already know about solutions or options is going to be a ridiculously futile challenge, and that doesn’t seem to be where you are looking to solve the problem anyway.
Then we can just pivot and have it be a thread to inform those who do not know.
We have posts about a whole bunch of less important stuff, I think a drought which is definitely a sub-category of risk is definitely well within boundaries.
California Drought thread
calm down and stop arguing about someone using the word zero in a hyperbolic fashion.
Then we can merely respond to whatever range of the interval you think the utilities are. Read this
or Risk—A Multidisciplinary Introduction all emphasize non-statistical risk measures. It doesn’t matter whether it’s zero or not.
“We discuss a simplified view of risk assessment and do not cover decision and utility theory except in passing and to make the point that such theory is not enough without coherent models of the problem situation. Most other books try to present decision the- ory and risk all at once and in a very mathematical way; this can be rather overwhelming.”
Alright?
You’re not adding any information
False. I have given further resources and people have not talked about them. Not every one is passive.
http://www.bayesianrisk.com/chapters.html http://www.bayesianrisk.com/sample_chapters/Chapter%201%20There%20is%20more%20to%20assessing%20risk%20than%20statistics.pdf
I agree with Viliam & gym. This just points to the limits of statistical knowledge & that we need to supplement with other logical-experimental knowledge, such as arguments from evolution.
Risk cannot only be based on statistical knowledge, as chapter one of bayesian risk argues.
Wait did you mean for Jayman’s hypothesis is low or breast milk?
I talked this over with a large amount of people I have known know in the bay area rationalist community and I am correct, and they told me to just ignore it(and you). It’s just a problem with posting on forums.
You have still failed to answer the one part of my argument I was referring to, if it has zero effect is has the integral of utilities set to zero which is completely false, it also means the probabilities are enumerated which is false, the study design only enumerates parts of the entire probabilities of the spectrum, that’s what statistical analysis IS. If you do not see why the twin design study does not enumerate all relevant probabilities under analysis then you need to reed more. Sorry. Do twin design studies remove all uncertainties? No not really it depends on what we are talking about. Statistical analysis is not the whole picture when it comes to executing over risk, because there is a hard limit for the utility of statistical analysis for decision making which is why we hand it off to prescriptive decision theory.
I am fundamentally satisfied that I am correct afaik.
read the first chapter of this http://www.amazon.com/Assessment-Decision-Analysis-Bayesian-Networks/dp/1439809100 or get it from libgen
I did take about it. Someone who says X is less important then it’s generally believed isn’t arguing that X has a zero effect. Treating him as if he would argue that means to strawman. It’s generally more useful to steelman arguments than to strawman them.
https://twitter.com/JayMan471/status/595063270190493696
Does it look like I’m strawmaning? I did not strawman any argument I had direct quotes and he has talked to me several times implying the same thing and in fact many people accept that those are his positions. He has directly told me it has zero effect. Read that quote and then read your ridiculous posturing.
Keith Stanovich’s arguments apply to the entire human race as does the certainty & utilities argument. I have given you direct quotes and direct reading material which DIRECTLY STATES ALL OF MY ARGUMENTS. I’ve had enough.
No it does not necessarily mean that. Less wrong has an extremely concentrated individual of very petty people especially on the forums and it’s quite suffocating at times. Everyone agrees with that fact in the bay area meetup communities.
Being lesswrong & learning rationality to overcome biases is a standard less wrong topic and nothing I said was incorrect.
People were making standard reasoning errors. If you are on less wrong and you do not think you can learn skills that confer you an advantage then you are in the wrong place. My argument was wider than what you were suggesting. Parents can easily teach their kids how to meliorate their wetware. My argument that Jayman implies lack of uncertainty/ignorance and that all utilities equate to zero was my argument and you did not talk about it.
We should only give the older members downvoting abilities like hacker news because a certain minority just ruins it.
Alright you guys here is an alternative reason why anyone who disagrees with my stance that I outlined is incorrect.
1) You go on less wrong/overcoming bias
2) Keith stanovich exists
3) you can learn rationality(non-genetic) which confers advantages arguably more than I.Q.(see stanovich)
4) it is reverse stupidity (my athropic probabilities argument i gave to gwern)
5) therefore it is a can
6) it is an advantage period
7) CFAR is not genetic
All my other arguments were correct. I object to anyone calling anything I was saying vague, I understand that LW has a much higher tendency of autistic thought and if you have it please cooperate with me in how to think. Not everything is ‘vague’.
I found it absolutely strange that everyone disagreed considering you are here to overcome bias. I dislike petty downvoting rings.
I don’t agree that it is relevant and it skewers the conversation in a direction that I do not think is important or obscures the discussion.
Thanks, i’m going to buy this.