User Profile

star1
description43
message1702

Recent Posts

Curated Posts
starCurated - Recent, high quality posts selected by the LessWrong moderation team.
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Frontpage Posts
Posts meeting our frontpage guidelines: • interesting, insightful, useful • aim to explain, not to persuade • avoid meta discussion • relevant to people whether or not they are involved with the LessWrong community.
(includes curated content and frontpage posts)
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Personal Blogposts
personPersonal blogposts by LessWrong users (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

Rationality Quotes December 2013

4y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
464

[LINK] Bets do not (necessarily) reveal beliefs

5y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
23

[LINK] Raw Story: US seizes operator accounts of a subsidiary of Mt. Gox

5y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
11

Meetup : LessWrong Ottawa

5y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
3

[Link] Machiavelli in historical context

6y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
17

[Video] Presentation on metacognition contains good intro to basic LW ideas

6y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
0

Meetup : Less Wrong Ottawa

7y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
0

Meetup : Less Wrong Ottawa

7y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
1

Ottawa LW meetup, June 23, 7pm; two Bayesian Conspiracy sessions

7y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
1

Ottawa LW meetup, June 16, 7pm; two Bayesian Conspiracy sessions

7y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
0

Recent Comments

This is a field in which the discoverer of the theorem that rational agents cannot disagree was given the highest possible honours...

I can't say I disagree.

Of course experimental design is very important in general. But VAuroch and I agree that when two designs give rise to the same likelihood function, the information that comes in *from the data* are equivalent. We disagree about the weight to give to the information that comes in from what the choic...(read more)

> you're ignoring critical information

No, it practical terms it's negligible. There's a reason that double-blind trials are the gold standard -- it's because doctors are as prone to cognitive biases as anyone else.

Let me put it this way: recently a pair of doctors looked at the available evidenc...(read more)

Thanks for the sci-hub link. So awesome!

> You're going to have a hard time convincing me that... vectors are a necessary precursor for regression analysis...

So you're [fitting a straight line](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_linear_regression). Parameter estimates don't require linear algebra (that is, vectors and matrices). Super...(read more)

> Consciousness is the *most recent* module, and that does mean [that drawing causal arrows from consciousness to other modules of human mind design is ruled out, evolutionarily speaking.]

The causes of the fixation of a genotype in a population are distinct from the causal structures of the result...(read more)

Sure, I agree with all of that. I was just trying to get at the root of why "nobody asked [you] to take either vow".

Before I also haven't heard anybody speak about taking those kinds of vows to oneself.

It's not literal. It's an attempt at poetic language, like The Twelve Virtues of Rationality.

I don't disagree with this. A lot of the kind of math Scott lacks is just rather complicated bookkeeping.

(Apropos of nothing, the work "bookkeeping" has the unusual property of containing three consecutive sets of doubled letters: oo,kk,ee.)