SanguineEmpiricist

Karma: −47

SanguineEmpiricist May 5, 2015, 1:25 AM
−11 points
in reply to: SolveIt’s comment on: Open Thread, May 4 - May 10, 2015
I’m sort of shocked I have to refer to anything, this is pretty much standard less-wrong material. This is not ‘vaguely’ this is pretty much bread and butter. I gave references in my original post(first few chapters of gambling with the truth/any textbook on statistical decision theory). His statement is incorrect out of the box without me being difficult whatsoever.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/gu1/decision_theory_faq/#what-do-decision-theorists-mean-by-risk-ignorance-and-uncertainty

SanguineEmpiricist May 4, 2015, 9:50 PM
−6 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Open Thread, May 4 - May 10, 2015
I’m not sure what that means, we are not talking about normal people we are talking about people like us who can adjust to this. The goal is to understand what the upper-end people think and how they use their advanced epistemology to run their hedges/beliefs accordingly. He seems to imply from his “You do not have free will” && “Parenting has no effect” stance that it is irrelevant.

I am trying to get an idea of an interval of where parenting is for the advanced people. Fixing disorders/adhd with medication from a parents perspective vs a parent who doesn’t will easily make a kid succeed.

ADHD meds are very effective while not being on them is very bad, so is teaching them valuable skills that other people do not know IS a good idea.

This style of conversation is important because the advantage of knowing even rudimentary decision theory gives you over say naive rationalism/‘traditional rationalism’/naive empiricism.

SanguineEmpiricist May 4, 2015, 9:00 PM
−4 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Open Thread, May 4 - May 10, 2015

One of the greatest pieces of evidence demonstrating that the family/rearing environment has no effect on eventual outcomes is the absence of birth order effects

The first comment is equally as strong. I’m having a running dialogue with him and he will come here and correct/clarify if necessary. Please focus on the topic at hand.

For once can we actually have a discussion?

edit: https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/no-you-dont-have-free-will-and-this-is-why/

No you do not have free will

My framing is coherent and correct

editedit: he said read this post https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/the-son-becomes-the-father/

SanguineEmpiricist May 4, 2015, 8:39 PM
2 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Open Thread, May 4 - May 10, 2015

“One of the greatest pieces of evidence demonstrating that the family/rearing environment has no effect on eventual outcomes is the absence of birth order effects. Birth order is an excellent test for these effects: it is something that systematically differs between siblings and is bona fide non-genetic (mostly). Hence, it’s a great way to see if childhood environment leaves any sort of mark on people.”

He is just straight up naively saying parenting has no effect and the consequential statement that any one can act as if this is completely true. This is not an exercise, this is trying to convince an actual person why he is wrong. I’ll ask him for a clarified picture right now.

https://jaymans.wordpress.com/category/parenting-2/ https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/12/21/iq-and-birth-order-effects-real-no/

Parenting is simply less important than most people think. But as with the issue with health and obesity, even individuals who understand the pervasiveness of nature and the apparent stochasticity of what we call “environment” like to believe there is some way they can exert control (see locus of control, courtesy Richard Harper).

SanguineEmpiricist May 4, 2015, 7:04 PM
−6 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: Open Thread, May 4 - May 10, 2015
I don’t think that definition is adequate.

Non-naive nurture matters to an extent, my argument has nuance. This is pretty much the exact domain of statistical decision theory/prescriptive decision theory and its conclusions have strict priority. The problem is that a large class of the professional intellectual class have not caught up.

SanguineEmpiricist May 4, 2015, 6:16 PM
−1 points
in reply to: Ishaan’s comment on: Open Thread, May 4 - May 10, 2015
I think my statement is understated. Read Isaac Levi’s gambling with the truth for kind of the right area but any statistical decision theory book will work. This is a place for prescriptive decision theory and not scientists even though they are important.

Very lesswrongish.

SanguineEmpiricist May 4, 2015, 6:09 PM
0 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: Open Thread, May 4 - May 10, 2015
I will read it but I must insist I do not have any ‘nurture’ assumption.

SanguineEmpiricist May 4, 2015, 6:01 PM
0 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Open Thread, May 4 - May 10, 2015
It’s too far against nurture. This is pushing against the limit for hard reductionism there are definitely non-genetic emergent effects while maintaining the absolute good taste of genetic arguments.

SanguineEmpiricist May 4, 2015, 5:59 PM
−5 points
in reply to: Ishaan’s comment on: Open Thread, May 4 - May 10, 2015
Yeah parenting definitely matters in specific skills you choose to teach your kids/putting your kids on medication if they need it etc. It’s a problem with scientists getting over-excited about the implications of their studies, they want to believe they can be a priesthood to the world when there is a higher plane of counsel & reference, which is prescriptive decision theory.

SanguineEmpiricist May 4, 2015, 5:57 PM
−2 points
in reply to: zslastman’s comment on: Open Thread, May 4 - May 10, 2015

You can’t just say “X is difficult to encapsulate” with studies. This is a fully general counter argument to any evidence you don’t like.

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m just saying that even if a small percentage of the population took that advice as definitive and executed over it, all latent small probabilities would be realized and the mistakes would be immediately manifested. Stuff like that isn’t being difficult as any pharmaceutical company or any medical company has to know for sure that their studies/devices are correct for health effects. In fact in statistical decision theory texts pharmaceutical examples are standard.

tl;dr this would be a big lawsuit of some sorts

SanguineEmpiricist May 4, 2015, 5:49 PM
0 points
in reply to: gwern’s comment on: Open Thread, May 4 - May 10, 2015
Thanks for the reply

I’m saying in general with probabilistic inference not necessarily to twin study design. I think I worded it relatively poorly. I’m saying there is that is not necessarily encapsulated in the study because there would have to be some relatively exhaustive statistical machinery applied.

When someone says something with such strength that there is zero effect(ask him on twitter) that means there is no uncertainty and we know all relevant variables and have assigned probabilities and utility values to them(everything is known). Which is false. We do not know if we have missed something related to for , because we have not done exhaustive statistical studies on it. we probably only have so much empirical knowledge related to it. His statement is even stronger that there is no uncertainty, he is saying there is no risk to executing over the advice that parenting has no effect and therefore we can just go do whatever we want with parenting. Which is equivalent to assigning the utilities to all equal zero or the integral to zero.

He is saying there is neither uncertainty, nor risk. A bit long winded, I think I might ask Mrs.Mayo if I have it right.

To say a statement with such strength of

Parenting has no effect

and that it is advice that could be executed over, say ten thousand people stop parenting their kids would mean that any negative effects that were not captured in the study would be realized no matter how small the probability, that we missed something not encapsulated in the study or something in general. It’s just a problem with executing over empirical advice in general. It’s hard for me to state declaratively.

For example I think we could argue that the fact that these people exist to be studied means that there is a survivorship bias accordingly(for those that did not get studied are dead/did not show up) and that that weights the probabilities in the favor of the people who survived but if we evaluate the entire sample space(dead+alive) it would be in favor of parenting.

For us to ascertain with a greater degree of certainty we would need to pull out the big guns of statistics/probability in general to make sure we have done due diligence and only then after that we can conclude with certainty.

“I don’t think that’s true. Could you explain how the twin design requires that, keeping in mind the fundamental logic of the design?”

I think I covered this with my response and just wait for a follow-up response.

SanguineEmpiricist May 4, 2015, 7:05 AM
1 point
in reply to: D_Malik’s comment on: Open Thread, May 4 - May 10, 2015
Yeah but his abrasiveness of delivery is contrary to your goodwill. I’m being polite in his favor.

SanguineEmpiricist May 4, 2015, 6:40 AM
1 point
in reply to: passive_fist’s comment on: Open Thread, May 4 - May 10, 2015
I’m not sure, I just took his word on it. I’ll ask him in the morning and edit it in later

SanguineEmpiricist May 4, 2015, 5:47 AM
6 points
in reply to: knb’s comment on: Open Thread, May 4 - May 10, 2015
The fact that he claims so authoritatively and certainly that there is zero effect which is hubris manifest. it is also incorrect for the arguments I have or at best rather incomplete.

SanguineEmpiricist May 4, 2015, 3:14 AM
1 point
on: Open Thread, May 4 - May 10, 2015
Interested in what you guys think about this. Jayman(hbd blogger) say’s parenting has no effect on how children turn out. Seems empirically incorrect to me and it’s just probably difficult to encapsulate the results/hard to see non-linearities to make it easy to reference.

He insists on twin-adoption studies contrary to my views.

Thoughts? This sort of seems like the two cultures divide we agree on. I might make a thread just for this.

Argument: Does parenting have any effect on child outcomes?
- His view: Zero effect & Breast milk confers no advantage either
- My view: Parenting has some variable effect that is difficult to encapsulate in the studies he references while maintaining the correctness and good taste of genetic arguments.
I cite decision theory, statistical inference, study design, and the related area as being primal over empirical references which have failed to encapsulate the effects he is pointing to in his observables. Statistical inference just doesn’t work like that to give such strong conclusions. Any one who reads the literature on study design/inference knows that it’s just not possible to give recommendations that are that strong. Sort of in the realm is Isaac Levi’s “Gambling with the Truth” if not only the first few chapters although not quite, probably just statistical study design/inference in general.

Thoughts any one? I think scientists or empirical researchers are not used to being told that there is a higher plane of reference. Saying that there is zero influence is equivalent to saying all the relevant variables have been enumerated and assigned exact values for probability & effect and that there is nothing else to be assigned.

I believe my orientation is correct.

edit: I might add that not ONLY would that be saying that the relevant variables have been completely enumerated && assigned cost functions but that we are sure there is nothing else(no uncertainty) and that we are sure they all equal zero/canceled out.

SanguineEmpiricist Apr 22, 2015, 2:50 AM
2 points
in reply to: passive_fist’s comment on: Open Thread, Apr. 20 - Apr. 26, 2015
sleeping on my side worked for me, if i am not disciplined i mess it up, the expectation is so large that perhaps a mouthguard or machine is worth it. If you wake up at night but cannot remember or remember falling then I now that is a good sign.

google sleep apnea/shallow breathing while sleeping. I’m afraid I cannot do too much more to help with my current knowledge.

SanguineEmpiricist Apr 21, 2015, 11:29 PM
1 point
in reply to: LawrenceC’s comment on: Book Review: Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications (MIRI Course List)
How thorough were you? What chapters/sections did you do?

SanguineEmpiricist Apr 21, 2015, 7:10 PM
14 points
on: Open Thread, Apr. 20 - Apr. 26, 2015
If any one has sleep apnea with or without snoring or even a hint of being too tired during the day please fix it. My life is profoundly better and I have access to a life i did not know was possible, no more sadness or depression whatsoever.

My life is 20-40x better I feel like I have woken up in another world that was shut off from me for the first 20ish years of my lifespan.

SanguineEmpiricist Apr 20, 2015, 1:13 AM
−7 points
on: LessWrong experience on Alcohol
I would immediately disbelieve what nerdy people say about social situations especially alcohol most people use proxy plausible excuses to hide social fear. Considering I have actually met a large quantity of people who participate in this sort of stuff I would favor my conclusion to a large degree and override any soft discussion on “bitterness” or “taste”.

However if this isn’t the case then carry on. I predict that a lot of people will just argue with me for no reason about this even though I am correct for probably the majority of participants in this discussion. If you are one of those people you need to break out of your shell, passivity is harmful for personality development.

SanguineEmpiricist Apr 20, 2015, 1:12 AM
0 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: LessWrong experience on Alcohol
If you are an acoholic isn’t that more of a problem with impulsiveness and pointing to exec function deficits(if anything?). You can look into that. I would REALLY look into this if I were you.