4 ms·
Asking that question and then implying in the comments that the wording doesn't lead people to a specific conclusion is exactly the type of "bad faith" action t
by ryanmonroe 8y ago
Asking that question and then implying in the comments that the wording doesn't lead people to a specific conclusion is exactly the type of "bad faith" action this post purports to be against. Well, either that or the author is just very biased and very oblivious. Either way, it gives some insight into what he means by "infer indirectly from my neutral analytical text that I promote the most extreme views imaginable"
- whymauri 8y agoThis is a prime example of someone claiming to be neutral or centrist to push their agenda while holding a falsified high ground. You see it all the time on Reddit.
- zepto 8y agoYou may be right, but it’s also possible that you are projecting your own bias onto what the author is doing. If you read his pieces, it’s clear that his focus is on Bayesian probability and reasoning in general. That question is interesting, because you can certainly read it as a leading question. But you can also just take it at face value. One answer might be that the fraction is likely to be close to 100%, since there is a good chance that the population is just one, and we know that she actually did. What fraction of people can tell the difference between a Bayesian economist asking a question with an uninituitive answer, and someone with a ‘falsified’ agenda to push?