3 ms·

> I point out how one section I know a lot about is deeply wrong, everyone else says versions of "well other than that part it's a great book!" Sometimes books

> I point out how one section I know a lot about is deeply wrong, everyone else says versions of "well other than that part it's a great book!" Sometimes books about magical properties of crystals get their geology right. Sometimes they get it wrong. If I apply your superficial filter I essentially give up my ability to convey the difference to your friends. If I ignore your filter and pay attention to the entirety of each book, it's trivial for me to help them separate wheat from chaff. (Or at least chaffy-wheat from pure chaff.)

renewiltord 6y ago
Considering that Matticus there knows about LW and Rationalism, it seems obvious he isn't saying to zero out your coefficients. Imagine I give you a dictionary purporting to contain descriptions of the referents of the following words: (I assume you know what a sprint is, but not a bilparyoti or a zambungar) * sprint - to run at a rapid pace for a short distance * bilparyoti - a kind of bright blue butterfly, found in Congo-Brazzaville * zambungar - a muddy colour, specifically that created when a landslide enters a clear river Now, based on knowing that 'sprint' is 'correct', what is your probability, posterior to being supplied the dictionary, that you know what a 'bilparyoti' references? Now, imagine that I tell you that the 'bilparyoti' is wrong and you are able to be convinced that the 'bilparyoti' is wrong. Is your prior for the accuracy of the 'zambungar' reference the same as the posterior after being supplied the information about the 'bilparyoti'? Matticus, there, presumably laments the fact that the zambungar accuracy probability has not moved. Rationally it should move towards zero. By varying amounts, certainly, but towards zero. With his friends, P(zambungar_correct | bilparyoti_wrong) = P(zambungar_correct|bilparyoti_unknown), truly a situation worthy of wailing and gnashing of teeth.
- Matticus_Rex 6y ago
  Thanks for putting waaay more effort into that response than I would have haha
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Most definitely a great deal of akrasia involved there on my part.
- jancsika 6y ago
  > With his friends, P(zambungar_correct | bilparyoti_wrong) = P(zambungar_correct|bilparyoti_unknown), truly a situation worthy of wailing and gnashing of teeth. Granted. But OP seems to be at the other extreme which is equally problematic: > Everyone reads a book, everyone but me likes it. That strongly implies a boolean value judgment to me.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    I think that's just a shortcoming of terse communication. I would wager he's not zeroing out the coefficients considering the context. Maybe $10 at 5:1 if there were a way to ensure fairness on the bet.
  - Matticus_Rex 6y ago
    Nah, he's right. I often just end up with "I found parts of this persuasive and appealing, but I can't trust it because those parts are things I don't know much about, and in the parts I do know a lot about, there were serious issues." It's not that I think I know the rest is bad, too; it's that I know I don't know.

renewiltord 6y ago

Considering that Matticus there knows about LW and Rationalism, it seems obvious he isn't saying to zero out your coefficients. Imagine I give you a dictionary purporting to contain descriptions of the referents of the following words: (I assume you know what a sprint is, but not a bilparyoti or a zambungar) * sprint - to run at a rapid pace for a short distance * bilparyoti - a kind of bright blue butterfly, found in Congo-Brazzaville * zambungar - a muddy colour, specifically that created when a landslide enters a clear river Now, based on knowing that 'sprint' is 'correct', what is your probability, posterior to being supplied the dictionary, that you know what a 'bilparyoti' references? Now, imagine that I tell you that the 'bilparyoti' is wrong and you are able to be convinced that the 'bilparyoti' is wrong. Is your prior for the accuracy of the 'zambungar' reference the same as the posterior after being supplied the information about the 'bilparyoti'? Matticus, there, presumably laments the fact that the zambungar accuracy probability has not moved. Rationally it should move towards zero. By varying amounts, certainly, but towards zero. With his friends, P(zambungar_correct | bilparyoti_wrong) = P(zambungar_correct|bilparyoti_unknown), truly a situation worthy of wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Matticus_Rex 6y ago
Thanks for putting waaay more effort into that response than I would have haha
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Most definitely a great deal of akrasia involved there on my part.
jancsika 6y ago
> With his friends, P(zambungar_correct | bilparyoti_wrong) = P(zambungar_correct|bilparyoti_unknown), truly a situation worthy of wailing and gnashing of teeth. Granted. But OP seems to be at the other extreme which is equally problematic: > Everyone reads a book, everyone but me likes it. That strongly implies a boolean value judgment to me.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  I think that's just a shortcoming of terse communication. I would wager he's not zeroing out the coefficients considering the context. Maybe $10 at 5:1 if there were a way to ensure fairness on the bet.
- Matticus_Rex 6y ago
  Nah, he's right. I often just end up with "I found parts of this persuasive and appealing, but I can't trust it because those parts are things I don't know much about, and in the parts I do know a lot about, there were serious issues." It's not that I think I know the rest is bad, too; it's that I know I don't know.