This additional point is controversial even here?
My prior for the probability of winning the lottery by fraud
What's your secret? ;)
Some people also think the ability to argue and selectively not comprehend arguments arose due to runaway sexual selection for ability to manipulate and resist manipulation.
I'm giving this one a rating of 8. Effective, but not quite bullet proof. At least it provides a significant roadblock before one form of procrastination.
What should I have learned from your link to Updateless Decision Theory that causes me to suspect that EU maximizing with Bayesian updating on a universal prior is wrong?
From what I can glean from the UDT descriptions it seems that UDT defines 'updating' to include things that I would prefer to describe as 'naive updating', 'updating wrong' or 'updating the wrong thing'.
There's nothing wrong with attempting to help with suggestions -- except for their grounding in ignorance of my situation -- but you are quite clearly saying that no one else should have done anything else accomodative on their end.
The quote quite clearly does not say that, which is an oversite on Alicorn's part and probably the advice most applicable to what little of your situation was presented in the context.
Nobody else should have done or should do anything else to accomodate your reproductive drives on their end.
Once you acknowledge that much the ...
-Claim that my needs are unusual? Check.
No, if anything the reverse claim was made.
-Claim that no one else should be doing or should have done anything different to accomodate me? Check.
Alicorn didn't comment on what other people should or should not do to accomodate you. The emphasis was on what you could do, which is far more useful. Dating is not a situation in which others can be expected to accomodate you.
As I stated, I intend no point other than those particular assertions made in my posts.
If you insist that I must only deploy arguments in support of a particular political agenda then said agenda is this: Bad arguments and hypocrisy presented in support of positions I approve of are still bad arguments and hypocrisy.
There is a real positive bias and this program helps confirm it.
Something that must be considered is whether the form of the test could have an influence on the outcome for reasons other than an intrinsic positive bias. More specifically, I note that the form of the question the participant has been given resembles that of question style that I have encountered many a time. In most of these cases I am expected to elicit the questioner's intended meaning, usually something specific. Were I to give the answer "actually, it could be any integers in asce...
Really? There's a study where they compared those three things? And they controlled for whether the participants were actually any good at producing results with affirmations or LoA? If so, I'd love to read it.
A study Two of the four would be sufficient to refute your claim that the three listed are each applications of the the same principle as the placebo pill you compared them to. The studies need not be controlled by skill, they may be controlled by the actual measured effectiveness of the outcomes. If you are interested, you may begin your research...
In that sense, affirmations, LoA, and hypnosis are explicit applications of the same principle, in that they attempt to set up the relevant expectation(s) directly.
An fMRI will tell you something different.
Similarly, Eliezer's "count to 10 and get up" trick is also a "placebo effect", in that it operates by setting up the expectation that, "after I count to 10, I'm going to get up".
No it isn't.
People expect to be able to learn to do a self-help technique in a single trial from a one-way explanation, perhaps because our brains are biased to assume they can already do anything a brain "ought to" be able to do "naturally".
Do they really expect to do that? Crazy kids.
"Susceptability to Trick Question Bias"
But if I water down my words to avoid offense to those who are not Brucing (or who are, but don't want to think about it) I lessen the clarity of my communication to precisely the group of people I can help by saying something in the first place.
Perhaps the reverse. By limiting your claims to the important ones, those that are actually factual, you reduce the distraction. You can be assured that 'Bruce' will take blatant fallacies or false claims as an excuse to ignore you. Perhaps they may respond better to a more consistently rational approach.
What I've said is that if you have a standard training method that moves 50% of people from low to high on some criterion, there is an extremely high probability that the other 50% needed something different in their training. I'm puzzled how that is even remotely a controversial statement.
It is a conclusion that just doesn't follow.
The phrase you're looking for is probably "socially acceptable" or "social norm".
Socially acceptable is suitable, I edited. In most situations I avoid it since it is an applause light that is still yet to be diffused. In this context, however, it feels more like a neutral descriptor.
Okay. Which specific normative demands are you rejecting?
Do not presume so much.
Okay. Which specific normative demands are you rejecting?
Those that I specifically reject in any specific post that I make. I have neither the obligation nor inclination to use my posts to make a united stance for one particular political position that I identify with. I in fact choose to disagree with poor arguments for opinions I approve of.
I'm not sure I follow.
I don't believe following is your intent.
In Australia at least we have Red Bull and that does seem to be a better substitute.
The grandparent was a genuine request. The sincerity of the disingenuous EDIT in the reply I have ironic doubts about.
You realize that this is an anti-applause light that conveys little informational value, right?
No. It adequately serves as a descriptive reference to the social dynamics involved in determining what is Right, moral, acceptable enlightened or otherwise good. If you can suggest a substitute phrase then I would happily adopt it. Arguments along the lines of 'something to do with political correct therefore something bad about the other side' are common. It is to be expected that some will assume a similar error of reasoning is being applied whenever the ph...
Upvoted entire ancestor tree, for similar reasons.