User Profile

star4
description9
message590

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

Gauging of interest: LW stock picking?

5y
2 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
31

Consciousness of simulations & uploads: a reductio

8y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
142

A Challenge for LessWrong

8y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
172

Rationality & Criminal Law: Some Questions

8y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
161

The scourge of perverse-mindedness

8y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
256

Recent Comments

I think Clifford was wrong to say the shipowner was sincere in his belief. In the situation he describes, the belief is insincere - indeed such situations define what I think "insincere belief" ought to mean.

>what are you going to do about, basically, stupid people who quite sincerely do not antic...(read more)

>completely ignoring the actual outcome seems iffy to me

That's because we live in a world where people's inner states are not apparent, perhaps not even to themselves. So we revert to (a) what would a reasonable person believe, (b) what actually happened. The latter is unfortunate in that it conde...(read more)

Yay for personal finance, boo for ethics, which is liable to become a mere bully pulpit for teachers' own views.

Possible that they understood the question, but hearing it in a foreign language meant cognitive strain, which meant they were already working in System 2. That's my read anyway.

Given to totally fluent second-language speakers, I bet the effect vanishes.

I don't really get this. It seems like both types of prediction matter quite a bit.

The only way I can interpret it that makes sense to me is something like:

>Thinking really hard about the infinity of things that might happen this week is an unproductive way to generate predictions, because the h...(read more)

If traditional marriage is a sparrow, then marriage with no-fault divorce is a penguin, and 5 college kids sharing a house is a centipede. Type specimen, non-type specimen, wrong category.

Social expectations are mutable, yes - what of it? Do you think it's desirable or inevitable that marriage jus...(read more)

This framing is marginally saner, but the weird panicky eschatology of pop-environmentalism is still present. Apparently the author thinks that using up too many resources, or perhaps global warming, currently represent human extinction level threats?

To my mind, the giving of tax breaks etc. to married folks occurs because (rightly or wrongly) politicians have wanted to encourage marriage.

I agree that in principle there is nothing wrong with 3 single moms or 5 college students forming some sort of domestic partnership contract, but why give th...(read more)

Just to clarify, you figure the optimal relationship pattern (in the absence of societal expectations, economic benefits, and I guess childrearing) is serial monogamy? (Maybe the monogamy is assuming too much as well?)