personal/nunosempere.github.io
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Update writeup.md

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Nuño Sempere 2019-06-02 18:18:24 +02:00 committed by GitHub
parent 0c5eb0720c
commit d0108236d9
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
rat/eamentalhealth/analysis/writeup.md
View File

@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ Several interpretations present themselves.
3: "Those who believe they could personally benefit might assess ressources as more valuable precisely because they benefit themselves" is logically equivalent to "Those who don't believe they could personally benefit might assess resources as less valuable precisely because they wouldn't benefit themselves", but in the second case, the connotation is that the bias is on the part of the mentally healthy people. More neutrally, this is perhaps a case of the typical mind fallacy, in which both mentally healthy and mentally ill people use the heuristic of estimating the typical EA mind as similar to their mind, and thus reach different conclusions.
4: Others.
Personal comment: After having considered the above interpretations, I still assign most of the probability mass to interpretation 1: that this mechanism is [due to self-interest, or structurally similar to it](http://elephantinthebrain.com). That seems to me to be the most straightforward and simple hypothesis, whereas I see the other ones as sophisticated ex post facto rationalizations, that is, of being the answers to the following question: now that we know that this happened, what other mechanisms could explain the same phenomenon while not accusing anyone of being influenced by self-interest? (that has been, incidentally, the algorithm used to generate these ideas). To express the above numerically, I think that the intuitive odds which I assign to (Interpretation 1: Interpretation 2 or Interpretation 3) would broadly and roughly be in the neighbourhood of (98:2) to (80:20), but definitely not (50:50). This judgement may appear, and in fact be, one-sided.
Personal comment: After having considered the above interpretations, I still assign most of the probability mass to interpretation 1: that this mechanism is [due to self-interest, or structurally similar to it](http://elephantinthebrain.com). That seems to me to be the most straightforward and simple hypothesis, whereas I see the other ones as sophisticated ex post facto rationalizations, that is, of being the answers to the following question: now that we know that this happened, what other mechanisms could explain the same phenomenon while not accusing anyone of being influenced by self-interest? (that has been, incidentally, the algorithm used to generate these ideas). To express the above numerically, I think that the intuitive odds which I assign to (Interpretation 1: Interpretation 2: Interpretation 3) would broadly and roughly be more like (80:2:10), and not at all like (33:33:33). This judgement may appear, and in fact be, one-sided.
Readers are welcome to reach their own conclusions.