<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>>…</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Adrian Tymes<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [ExI] Science confirms: Politics wrecks your ability to do math<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Anders Sandberg <<a href="mailto:anders@aleph.se" target="_blank">anders@aleph.se</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>>>…</span>Worse, we are pretty numerate on this list. What horrific biases might we harbour about things? (Looks worried at the energy quarrel and takes cover)<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span>Indeed. It is one's intellectual responsibility, to honesty, to recognize such biases within oneself and accept when the data might prove that one's own cherished opinions are wrong<span style='color:#1F497D'>…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Ja. It isn’t even necessarily cherished opinions, but rather differing initial assumptions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Let us consider an example peculiar to the point of view of many of us here; the inevitability of the singularity. Even that can fall into differing categories. For normal people, there is no expectation of the singularity; it just happens like the Spanish Inquisition. For those of us aware of the notion, we have those who think the singularity must happen, within the near term, the next fifty years or so. There are those who say such a thing might happen that soon, but it might not: there might be some still unknown something that makes the whole concept impossible with current technology. There are those who think we have reached peak intelligence and we just didn’t quite make it to the singularity.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Look now at those three assumptions: no singularity, near term certainty of singularity, and the maybes. Can you see how different one’s outlook is deeply impacted by which of those three categories one belongs? Which are you? I put myself in the third category: I can’t convince myself the singularity is a near term certainty, but it sure might happen.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><br><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span>Perhaps we can not fix this in most of humanity. But each and every one of us can fix this within ourselves, so that at least we avoid making the problem worse...and perhaps inspire others to rise with us, that we can all find agreement based on what actually is, regardless of what we wish would be. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Ja. We can explain much of the current political struggle on differences in assumptions regarding government debt. There are those who believe governments must eventually balance their books, and those who believe they do not. As a possible third category, we could imagine even if governments do not ever balance their books, they must at least demonstrate they are trying. I put myself in the first category. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>spike<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>