qvalq

Posts

Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions

Comments

You might not survive as yourself, if you could see yourself.

Those who say "That which can be destroyed by the truth should be" may continue to walk the Path from there.

That's wonderful.

Adult IQ scores do too, I think.

You worded this badly, but I agree. 

It is possible to read "you robbed a bank" without imagining robbing a bank. Just very hard, and maybe impossible if you're not readied.

disclaimer

This might be the least disclamatory disclaimer I've ever read.

I'd even call it a claimer.

I think that list would be very helpful for me.

Can you form a representative sample of your "list"? Or send the whole thing, if you have it written down.

If people are conforming rationally, then the opinion of 15 other subjects should be substantially stronger evidence than the opinion of 3 other subjects.

This doesn't seem true; the data correlate pretty strongly, so more wouldn't provide much evidence.

Adding a single dissenter—just one other person who gives the correct answer, or even an incorrect answer that’s different from the group’s incorrect answer—reduces conformity very sharply, down to 5–10% of subjects.

This is irrational, though.

The simulations you made are much more complicated than physics. I think almost any simulation would have to be, if it showed an apple with any reasonable amount of computing power (if there's room for an "unreasonable" amount, there's probably room for a lot of apples).

Edit: is this how links are supposed to be used?

Load More