Friendly suggestion to all that Bayes Theorem is the right way to deal with this kind of weak evidence. We should not adhere to arbitrary legal standards in our own thinking about the truth.
I just signed up to prolific. Their onboarding tutorial/example survey references prescreening and eligibility. I'm guessing it was on researchers to filter the demographics to what was relevant to their study.
I think this is actually the right approach. Some 'balancing' algorithm would have to make assumptions about what's normal, then then the excluded participants wouldn't even show up in the research data.
I think yes, since that’s what it roughly did normally if you didn’t balance. This was a change in the normal behaviour, so if you ran a study from one week the next you wouldn’t have known that your data would change dramatically without additional screening.
If 2x programmers are paid ~2x then the company is using some performance metric to influence pay, but then for pay to remain secret the performance metric also has to be secret.
You have to weight the validity of the reasoning across all turtle observers through history. If you reject probabilistic reasoning because it sometimes tell you things that are wrong, then you have no way to reason about uncertainty.
If your reasoning about uncertainty tells you there's a 99% chance something is false while it's true, what good is it? All the math in the world won't save you from the specious premises in this no-seafarers argument.
"If your reasoning suggests you shouldn't play the lottery, but playing the lottery actually results in you winning, what use is your math?"
Well, what matters is expectation. The fact that some people win the lottery doesn't prove that playing the lotto is profitable. In fact it isn't money-profitable. The fact that people sometimes win doesn't change the nature of reality, that even for them, the win is unexpected and playing was negative expectation for them.
You seem to be confusing expected value with results.
Do you revise your decision process every time you get unlucky? On a meta level, sure, paying attention to unexpected failures is important to look for systematic errors. But randomly getting unlucky on 99% certainties does not automatically disprove your decision method.
There is virtually no real diversity in experimentation on social decision making processes. (Governments, Economies, Science) So debates devolve into some form of e.g. capitalism vs. socialism, but both system are governed by similar variations of a sovereign nation state, which are adapted from monarchies. Compare this to the space of all possible government descriptions and we're only looking at a weird narrow slice.
Because evolutionary pressures on governments produce stability and power instead of 'goodness of people', I suspect any random system that sounds remotely sensible would probably be superior to anything we have now. If we actually designed something that took into account new knowledge and technology, we could do much better.
Expectation of future profits is equivalent to belief that markets are inefficient. (Which of course they often are.) Open source economic planning could yield massive economic gains and doesn't require centralized power or use of force. (Pacifist governance is one of those unexplored spaces) An open public ledger would allow for resource allocation and incentivizing work without needing a monetization strategy.
If we track and account for externalities doing a good thing funds itself. You don't need a way to take money from the people you're helping. This also disincentivizes negative externalities.
As an example of how bad things are: We still debate on natural language forums instead of using structured arguments that link to common datasets and simulations. These comments get 'points' instead of bayesian probabilities, and there's no way to filter or rescore anything based on it's epistemological support or new data.
I agree with incentivizing health in general. Doing so without providing healthcare seems wrong.
Doing so through income tax rates is muddling the issues. The rich would hire dieticians and trainers just to save money. If public health is actually a priority, those kinds of services would be subsidized.
It is unpopular among university and research institutions that get federal grants. Also development companies that win contracts to create government websites/backends.
I agree with it, but it would disrupt a whole industry.
>only when "ownership" is artificially enforced by some sufficiently mighty entity with the power to do so is there anything to trade in the first place.
Every instance of funding open software and free content disproves this.
The valuable thing is the creation of IP. If you want IP pay for its creation. The market can do that.
