blashimov

Like: Houston though

Do we have a basic financial literacy category? It's perhaps well known to most LW-ers but I know we get the occasional aspiring rationalist high school / early college student and this stuff really isn't taught in school.

So what I'm getting is that if I already am investing in Vanguard, and being reasonable, the added value of betterment if any isn't worth my time? This is what I was trying to figure out today.

I have taken the survey, including all questions.

Link: Appeals to evidence may decrease donations among donors primarily seeking warm fuzzies: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2421943 hat tip http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/04/does-greater-charitable-effectiveness-spur-more-donations.html

My understanding, you might believe in some continued life after death, something about human souls, any sort of supernatural things, but not believe in a personified interacting deity who gave humans orders like worship me, do this/that etc., nor be a deist who thinks there is such a being but doesn't give orders for some reason.

All the extra credit questions!

You might repeat Intelligence Amplification here, as I was confused until I read the previous post links.

Naive hypothesis: Given the Flynn effect, and that college students are younger than the general population, could that explain the difference? That Coscott's conditional "If US citizens between 18 and 24 are representative of the entire population in terms of IQ" is false?

Wait, what? This might be a little off topic, but if you assert that they lack evidence and are drawing conclusions based on motivated reasoning, that seems highly relevant and not ad hominem. I guess it could be unnecessary, as you might try to focus exactly on their evidence, but it would seem reasonable to look at the evidence they present, and say "this is consistent with motivated reasoning, for example you describe many things that would happen by chance but nothing similar contradictory, so there seems to be some confirmation bias" etc.

[LINK] A day in the life of an NPC. http://www.npccomic.com/2011/10/19/beautiful-day/?utm_source=PW%2B&utm_medium=468x60&utm_content=Beauty&utm_campaign=PW%2B468x60%2BBeauty%2B

I see what you mean.

Fighting has a huge signalling component: when viewed in isolation, a fight might be trivially, obviously, a net negative for both participants. However, either or both! participants might in the future win more concessions for their willingness to fight alone than the loss of the fight. As humans are adaption executers, a certain willingness to fight, to seek revenge, etc. is pretty common. At least, this seems to be the dominant theory and sensible to me.

Really? Why?

Large mammals only? Is a domesticated cow smarter than a rat? A pigeon? Tough call.

Take the leadership feat, and hope your GM is lazy enough to let you level them. More practically, is it a skills problem or as I would guess an agency problem? Can impress on them the importance of acting vs not? Lend them the Power of Accountability? 7 habits of highly effective people? Can you compliment them every time they show initiative? etc. I think the solution is too specific to individuals for general advice, nor do I know a general advice book beyond those in the same theme as those mentioned.

True, so when I finally have money I guess I will take another look.

Well, if there's a line between fun enough to play and unpleasant enough not to, learning speed is almost certainly higher for playing the game relative to nothing.

Isn't angel investing for the relatively wealthy? What do you do around the 10k range? Especially considering that the less capital you have, the better working relative to spending time investing becomes.

For example, this absolutely works with say, an electric stove.