Just go back and skim a couple of them. You wouldn't start a book in the middle and then criticize the author for being hard to follow
These are two different things. Gell-Mann amnesia seems to address the latter. You're referring to the former when you warn against assigning general trust values. Assigning general trust values would actual prevent Gell-Mann amnesia. Correct?
I'm afraid I still don't follow. But I like the blog.
My smartphone cannot enter the sun room with me.
Are you serious about the second part? Estimating the credibility of people you read?
I found this extremely helpful. I'd known the world of therapy was complex but I had nothing like a broad map of it.
After staring at your chart for a minute I noticed that there are some modalities I'm able to do well for myself, and others that I'm not. When people claim they wouldn't benefit from "therapy," they're likely thinking of one or two modalities (and are likely correct), but may not be aware of the others.
Would you have preferred the post if framed around E(log(X))?
Technically yes, but I know it'd be harder to use as a mental model in everyday life. And anyway, I have the same initial bias as you
I love the spirit of this post, but all the focus on expected value raised some alarms in my head.
Maximizing the expected value in ordinary (financial) betting leads to bad decisions (St. Petersburg paradox), and it can do the same in other areas of life. I can see you know this intuitively, because you mentioned Pascal's Mugging. Just letting you know that there's math that accounts for this, too:
To avoid wasting life on Pascal's Mugging (or going broke on bad bets), we maximize the expected logarithm of value (Kelly Criterion), because we get diminishing utility from higher amounts of the same thing.
No, that's not my position. Read it again and see if there's a nuanced view that better fits my words.