User Profile

star3
description1
message19

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
All Posts
personIncludes personal and meta blogposts (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

6 Minute Intro to Evolutionary Psychology

8y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
1

Recent Comments

Interesting and thanks for your response!

I didn't mean there would be multiple stages of voting. I meant the first stage is a random selection and the second stage is the randomly chosen people voting. This puts the full weight of responsibility on the chosen ones and they should take it seriously...(read more)

The greater the number of voters the less time it makes sense as an individual to spend researching the options. It seems a good first step would be to randomly reduce the number of voters to an amount that would maximize the overall quality of the decision. Any thoughts on this?

Interesting experiment. It reminds me of an experiment where subjects wore glasses that turned world upside down (really, right side up for the projection on our eye) and eventually they adjusted so the world looked upside down when taking off the glasses.

What do you think a "yes" or "no" in your...(read more)

Part of it is that person let someone else die (theoretically) to save his own life. You let someone die for the Latte.

Note: I drink the Latte (occasionally), but it's because I think I can be more effective on the big stuff and that not saving is less bad than killing (as we both agree).

The point I'm responding to is:

Why are you carrying the moral burden?

Because everyone is. I'm assuming you meant that comment as saying something like the burden is diluted since so many people touch the money, but I don't think that is valid.

Imagine a 1st world economy where nobody ever spends any money on aid. If you live in that hypothetical world you (anybody) could take [$200](http://lesswrong.com/lw/15h/utilons_vs_hedons/11dn?context=2#comments) that is floating around and prevent a death (which is not the same as killing somebody...(read more)

Wondrous yes, but not miraculous

Star Trek, Richard Manning & Hans Beimler, Who Watches the Watchers? (reworded)

Some of my predictions are of the sort "the stock market will fall 50% tomorrow with 20% odds" (not a real prediction!). If it did happen I should get huge credit, but would it show up as negative credit since I predicted there was only a 20% chance it would happen? Is there some way it would be pos...(read more)

Me too. The interface for that was confusing enough that I ended up not submitting at all.

+1 for above.

As a separate question, what would you do if you lived in a world where Peter Unger was correct? And what if it was 1 penny instead of 1 dollar and giving the money wouldn't cause other problems? Would you never have a burger for lunch instead of rice since it would mean 100 children ...(read more)