Comments on: My BHTV with Tyler Cowen http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/my-bhtv-with-tyler-cowen.html Overcoming Bias is economist Robin Hanson’s blog, on honesty, signaling, disagreement, forecasting, and the far future. Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:49:03 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Nick Tarleton http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/my-bhtv-with-tyler-cowen.html#comment-385941 Nick Tarleton Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:30:18 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/03/my-bhtv-with-tyler-cowen.html#comment-385941 Eliezer only said "less mainstreaming". This could mean high-status women are more open, or low-status women are less open, than men. Eliezer only said “less mainstreaming”. This could mean high-status women are more open, or low-status women are less open, than men.

]]> By: Robin Hanson http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/my-bhtv-with-tyler-cowen.html#comment-385940 Robin Hanson Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:27:23 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/03/my-bhtv-with-tyler-cowen.html#comment-385940 Jeffrey, see <a href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/break-cryonics-down.html" rel="nofollow">my latest post</a>. Ems have a good aging cure, and I don't think advanced nanotech is required. Yes a lower discount rate implies a lower cutoff odds. Eliezer, a reasonable theory, which we should test relative to all the other theories that have been offered. Jeffrey, see my latest post. Ems have a good aging cure, and I don’t think advanced nanotech is required. Yes a lower discount rate implies a lower cutoff odds.

Eliezer, a reasonable theory, which we should test relative to all the other theories that have been offered.

]]> By: John Maxwell IV http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/my-bhtv-with-tyler-cowen.html#comment-385939 John Maxwell IV Tue, 17 Mar 2009 05:23:23 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/03/my-bhtv-with-tyler-cowen.html#comment-385939 Nick, Eliezer said prominent women will be more radical than prominent men. Being radical is a high-variance strategy. I think what's really going on is that intellectual success doesn't affect the sexual status of women nearly as much as it affects the sexual status of men. In fact, athletic success doesn't seem to either (go <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article4582421.ece" rel="nofollow">here</a> and do a keyword search for "medal".) When you think about it, men are actually pretty lucky--we are superficially judged in areas where it's possible and often noble to improve, whereas women are superficially judged on mostly fixed characteristics. Nick, Eliezer said prominent women will be more radical than prominent men. Being radical is a high-variance strategy.

I think what’s really going on is that intellectual success doesn’t affect the sexual status of women nearly as much as it affects the sexual status of men. In fact, athletic success doesn’t seem to either (go here and do a keyword search for “medal”.) When you think about it, men are actually pretty lucky–we are superficially judged in areas where it’s possible and often noble to improve, whereas women are superficially judged on mostly fixed characteristics.

]]> By: Carl Shulman http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/my-bhtv-with-tyler-cowen.html#comment-385938 Carl Shulman Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:32:50 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/03/my-bhtv-with-tyler-cowen.html#comment-385938 Jeff, The technology items are correlated. Jeff,

The technology items are correlated.

]]> By: Jeffrey Soreff http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/my-bhtv-with-tyler-cowen.html#comment-385937 Jeffrey Soreff Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:21:28 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/03/my-bhtv-with-tyler-cowen.html#comment-385937 I was also surprised at the combination of Robin favoring cryonics, yet being skeptical of much medical investment. Robin's 5% probability cutoff sounds very reasonable (my own, extremely crude, calculation is to say: Assume that successful cryonics gave unbounded life expectancy, assume a net present value of that life at a 1% discount rate, approximate the cost of cryonics as being about a year's income, and assume that the value of an extra year's income, the difference between spending that year working and spending it on vacation, is about the value of an extra year of life. This gives me a breakeven probability of around 1%). What seems strange is for him to expect better odds than 5% - particularly since he's done research showing that the average payback on current medical practise (<b>after</b> e.g. the medications used have met all of the efficacy tests the FDA requires) is low or negative. My own view of the odds for successful recovery from cryonic suspension is that quite a number of perhaps 50:50 odds events have to turn out favorably: <ol> <li>One has to actually receive a prompt (pre-autolysis) suspension <li>Something like Drexler/Merkle nanotechnology has to be developed. <li>Something capable of massively parallel microsurgery has to be developed from nanotechnology. <li>The problem of backtracing movement of fractured neural tissue has to turn out to be easy to develop. (This one is a specialty application - if it takes more than a handful of person-years, we're sunk.) <li>Future medicine has to develop a cure for aging. <li>The <b>specific</b> cryonics provider that one uses has to survive till the above conditions are met. <li>One's cryonics provider has to be motivated to actually thaw/repair its patients. </ol> I don't <i>think</i> I'm counting the same risk twice in this list. If I just wildly guess that they all are 50:50, the odds wind up a little below 1%, which is close enough that it was worth it for me to sign up. I can't see the odds being as high as 5%. I was also surprised at the combination of Robin favoring cryonics, yet being skeptical of much medical investment. Robin’s 5% probability cutoff sounds very reasonable (my own, extremely crude, calculation is to say: Assume that successful cryonics gave unbounded life expectancy, assume a net present value of that life at a 1% discount rate, approximate the cost of cryonics as being about a year’s income, and assume that the value of an extra year’s income, the difference between spending that year working and spending it on vacation, is about the value of an extra year of life. This gives me a breakeven probability of around 1%). What seems strange is for him to expect better odds than 5% – particularly since he’s done research showing that the average payback on current
medical practise (after e.g. the medications used have met all of the efficacy tests the FDA requires) is low or negative.

My own view of the odds for successful recovery from cryonic suspension is that quite a number of perhaps 50:50 odds events have to turn out favorably:

  1. One has to actually receive a prompt (pre-autolysis) suspension
  2. Something like Drexler/Merkle nanotechnology has to be developed.
  3. Something capable of massively parallel microsurgery has to be developed from nanotechnology.
  4. The problem of backtracing movement of fractured neural tissue has to turn out to be easy to develop.
    (This one is a specialty application – if it takes more than a handful of person-years, we’re sunk.)
  5. Future medicine has to develop a cure for aging.
  6. The specific cryonics provider that one uses has to survive till the above conditions are met.
  7. One’s cryonics provider has to be motivated to actually thaw/repair its patients.

I don’t think I’m counting the same risk twice in this list. If I just wildly guess that they all are 50:50, the odds wind up a little below 1%, which is close enough that it was worth it for me to sign up. I can’t see the odds being as high as 5%.

]]> By: Nick Tarleton http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/my-bhtv-with-tyler-cowen.html#comment-385936 Nick Tarleton Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:27:42 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/03/my-bhtv-with-tyler-cowen.html#comment-385936 John: Status has much less linear return in reproductive success for men than women, so high-variance strategies are more favorable for men. John: Status has much less linear return in reproductive success for men than women, so high-variance strategies are more favorable for men.

]]> By: Tim Tyler http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/my-bhtv-with-tyler-cowen.html#comment-385935 Tim Tyler Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:13:50 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/03/my-bhtv-with-tyler-cowen.html#comment-385935 Creating money devalues currency, destroying it increases its value. The diminishing marginal utility of money may reduce how much the rich benefit - but they still benefit more than those who have nothing. Creating money devalues currency, destroying it increases its value. The diminishing marginal utility of money may reduce how much the rich benefit – but they still benefit more than those who have nothing.

]]> By: John Maxwell IV http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/my-bhtv-with-tyler-cowen.html#comment-385934 John Maxwell IV Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:39:32 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/03/my-bhtv-with-tyler-cowen.html#comment-385934 Eliezer, how does the women and men thing follow from your explanation? Eliezer, how does the women and men thing follow from your explanation?

]]> By: Eliezer Yudkowsky http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/my-bhtv-with-tyler-cowen.html#comment-385933 Eliezer Yudkowsky Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:57:44 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/03/my-bhtv-with-tyler-cowen.html#comment-385933 Repost from a comment of mine on MR: <blockquote>The evolutionary psychology here seems really obvious. If you get cues telling you you're low-status, you'll take high-variance status bets - this manifests as a feeling of being open to odd ideas. If you get cues telling you you're high-status, people deferring to you and respecting you, then it pays to try to keep your high status. Testable prediction: women will exhibit less mainstreaming as a function of status increases than men.</blockquote> Repost from a comment of mine on MR:

The evolutionary psychology here seems really obvious. If you get cues telling you you’re low-status, you’ll take high-variance status bets – this manifests as a feeling of being open to odd ideas. If you get cues telling you you’re high-status, people deferring to you and respecting you, then it pays to try to keep your high status.

Testable prediction: women will exhibit less mainstreaming as a function of status increases than men.

]]> By: Jayson Virissimo http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/my-bhtv-with-tyler-cowen.html#comment-385932 Jayson Virissimo Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:21:37 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/03/my-bhtv-with-tyler-cowen.html#comment-385932 "Burning money benefits the rich most." -Tim Tyler If money has a diminishing marginal utility, then wouldn't the poor benefit the most or am I missing something? “Burning money benefits the rich most.” -Tim Tyler

If money has a diminishing marginal utility, then wouldn’t the poor benefit the most or am I missing something?

]]>