@Isomorphic_reasoning's banner p




0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 08 01:01:18 UTC
Verified Email


User ID: 961



0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 08 01:01:18 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 961

Verified Email

I have no idea what you could possibly mean. True statements have probability 1, that's axiomatic.

I agree with this. I think this relates to another interesting problem in probability. "What's the probability that the 10^10^10 th prime is 3 mod 4?" Its tempting to say 1/2 since we know that the asymptotic density is 1/2 and we have no way of knowing. But this is iconsistent with the axioms of probability theory. Since it's a statement with a definite answer the probability has to be either 1 or 0 to be consistent.

If the administration of airlines, air traffic control, pilot training and so on was ruthlessly meritocratic, then I'd agree with you that there'd be no difference in skill between black or female pilots and white male pilots, since they would all have passed the same tests and be above a certain benchmark

Actually, even with the same minimum standard for each race you would expect the white to be better on average.

If X is N(100,15) and Y is N(85,15) then E(X|X > 120) > E(Y|Y>120)

, so doing the objective calculation would probably make it a net negative for most women to initiate divorce

Most women don't divorce. If 40% of marriages end in divorce and 80% of these are initiated by women that means 68% of women don't initiate divorce

In my defense, my post was in response to someone who said "I don't think anyone would argue this". So my post was primarily serving to show that, yes, there are people that would argue this and I know this because I'm one of them. That's why l thought a short post was appropriate.

Profoundly retarded people are arguably less intelligent than squid, which at least have the ability to survive on their own , but I don't think anyone would argue that they have the same moral worth.

I would. I think all such people should be euthanized. They aren't really people. They're worthless sacks of flesh that just happen to have human DNA

I don't think you need full moral equivalence for vegan arguments to work. You just need a sufficient ratio. Even of chickens have only 1% of the moral value of humans the suffering we inflict upon them in factory farms is a great evil. On the other hand if chickens have 10^-100 times the moral value of humans its trivial. Unfortunately we are far from the point where we can actually compute such a ratio with any authority (though many have tried) so often the arguments fall back to intuition and emotion.

Already, 1 ounce of silver is worth $2,000

No it's not. It's $24

Whatever it cost in 1865 would have been worth it

If that's true (and im inclined to agree with you) the correct move was deporting all the freed slaves back to Africa after the Civil War. Why didn't we do that?

What I'm suggesting is things like "evasive body language" and "baggy coat on a summer day" are far more indicative of "shoplifting" than any demographic quality,

That's not what you said. You said "demographically, no" when asked whether it was possible to reason probabilistically about who was more likely to shoplift. There is a huge difference between saying that behavioral data gives more information than demographic data and saying that demographic data gives no probabilistic information at all. It sounds like you're backtracking here.

Where the hell are you getting p=0.5 from? Do you even know what a p value is? A p value is the probability of observing a result at least as far from the mean by random chance if the null hypothesis (in this case the hypothesis that all demographics commit shoplifting equally) was true. We have a ton of data on shoplifting. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of incidents spanning decades all across the country. The data shows a very clear trend that certain age groups (teens and 20's) and certain races (blacks) commit shoplifting at much higher rates than other ages or groups. This isn't some tiny marginal difference that only shows up on large datasets. We're talking double, triple, quadruple the rates. If you were to calculate a p value for this effect it would be astronomically tiny due to the huge sample size and large effect size.

  • As in the sense of using demographic data, it doesn’t appear so

Are you lying on purpose or are you actually this ignorant? The demographic data is quite clear. Blacks shoplift at drastically higher rates than whites or Asians.

Demographically no

This is false. Some demographics shoplift at drastically higher rates than others. You can never be certain someone is or isn't a shoplifter demographically but you can definitely reason probabilistically.

This isn't true though. Blacks commit almost every crime at rates higher than whites. There might be a few exceptions but the general trend is certainly not that different races commit equal amounts of crime but just commit different crimes. The general trend is that blacks commit more crime.

This is why issues like minimum wage get terrible traction— the only people who care are people who get paid hourly.

This doesn't seem true. Talking about raising the minimum wage and wealth inequality is popular amongst the nytimes reading PMC

I think that still fits with her narrative. They only admitted it sucked after they changed it. They didn't say their new pizza sucked

But more likely it's just some obscure thing about how the scoring works. It's definitely not just a number of points for each question, some computerized versions have adaptive questions based on how well you're doing, etc.

This doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter what the score curve is like. You can always transform a scoring system with a 130 min score and 170 max score to one with a 0 min score and 40 max score and the same curve by just subtracting 130 from each score.

Does the relationship between problem solving speed and g scale infinitely

Probably not infinitely, but it probably scales farther than the current tests are pushing it. I remember when i took the SAT I thought they gave you way too much time on the math section. I finished every question and double checked all my answers in less than half the time allotted so i just put my head down at that point.

On a related note, has anyone else noticed how weird the scoring systems on graduate level admissions tests are? The GRE, for example, has 2 sections verbal and quantitative each section scores out of 170, except the minimum possible score is 130. So the score range is only 40 wide. Why didn't they just make it 0-40? Why 130-170? The MCAT is even weirder, each section scores from 118-132. Why not 0-14 or 1-15?

My hypothesis is that adding a constant to everyone's scores makes the scores appear artificially closer together which reduces the perceived unfairness of affirmative action admissions. I wonder if we'll see a reversal of this trend now that the Supreme Court has come down on AA.

I understand that its not straightforward to write difficult math questions that do not require any advanced knowledge but with how easy the SAT/ACT math sections are it feels like they're not even trying. The AMC/AIME contain multiple questions each year that require no special knowledge and are harder than the hardest question on the SAT. Here's one nice example https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/1985_AIME_Problems/Problem_6 solving it requires no knowledge beyond area of a triangle = 1/2 base * height and basic equation solving but I bet many 800 math scorers would still struggle, especially with time pressure.

I think part of the issue is that a verbal/spatial split is not the same as a verbal/quantitative split. Something like theoretical math or physics might actually be more verbal than it is spatial even though it falls on the quant side of the verbal/quant split.

I suppose lol

I am also curious how someone who is really good at math could stand out in today’s environment. The SAT and a few good AP math scores wouldn’t seem to be enough. Do you need to have the opportunity to compete in high-end math tournaments?

The AMC/AIME/USAMO series of tests is widely available and is the most prestigious high school math competition in the country. I went to a thoroughly mediocre public school and even my school offered it. Which allowed me to become a USAMO winner. Of course Harvard still rejected me because they're a bunch of pretentious assholes.

People don't like inflation and blame it on the other side so mentioning it riles up the base