User Profile

star4
description7
message469

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

[Link] Change

1y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
10

[Link] Dreaming of Political Bayescraft

1y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
48

Rationality Quotes January 2010

8y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
143

News: Improbable Coincidence Slows LHC Repairs

8y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
28

Recent Comments

What specific bad things would you expect to happen if the post was left up, with what probabilities? (I'm aware of the [standard practice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice) of not discussing ongoing legal cases, but have my doubts about whether allowing the legal system to operate under con...(read more)

> The mature way to handle suicidal people is to call professional help, as soon as possible.

It's worth noting that this creates an incentive to never talk about your problems.

My advice for people who value not being kidnapped and forcibly drugged by unaccountable authority figures who won't lis...(read more)

I corresponded with sad_dolphin. It added a little bit of gloom to my day, but I don't regret doing it: [having](http://zackmdavis.net/blog/2013/03/religious/) [suffered](http://zackmdavis.net/blog/2013/04/prodrome/) from similar psychological problems in the past, I want to be there with my hard-wo...(read more)

> But I'm being told that this is "meta-uncertainty" which right-thinking Bayesians are not supposed to have.

Hm. Maybe those people are wrong??

> Clearly not since the normal distribution goes from negative infinity to positive infinity

That's right; I should have either said "approximately", or...(read more)

> As I said, I want a richer way to talk about probabilities, more complex than taking them as simple scalars. Do you think it's a bad idea?

That's right, I think it's a bad idea: it sounds like what you actually want is a richer way to talk about your beliefs about Coin 2, but you can do that usin...(read more)

> Can my utility function include risk aversion?

That would be missing the point. The vNM theorem says that if you have preferences over "lotteries" (probability distributions over outcomes; like, 20% chance of winning $5 and 80% chance of winning $10) that satisfy [the axioms](https://en.wikipedia...(read more)

Correlations are symmetric, but is evidence for may not be (depending on how you interpret the phrase): P(A|B) ≠ P(B|A) (unless P(A) == P(B)).

Expected _utility_ is not the same thing as expected _dollars_. As [AgentStonecutter explained to you](https://www.reddit.com/r/LessWrong/comments/67wnc6/pdf_a_comment_on_expected_utility_theory/dgtvvan/) on Reddit last month, the standard assumption of diminishing marginal utility of money is entir...(read more)

> more than I’m willing to commit to an article I am writing out of boredom

As a reader, this gives me pause. If you didn't have any more compelling reason to write than that, you shouldn't expect anyone to have a compelling reason to read. Maybe give yourself more credit: you weren't _merely_ bore...(read more)

Yeah, that makes sense. Sorry. Feel free to say more or PM me if you want to try to have a careful-and-respectful discussion now (if you trust me).