Posts

Comments

Comment by dirac_delta on A Rationalist Guide to OkCupid · 2016-02-08T14:59:01.309Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

The goal of dating should be to find your compliment

Sorry if this comes across as needlessly pedantic, but the correct word should be 'complement', not 'compliment'.

I am not trying to put you down; I just thought it might be something you'd like to know.

Comment by dirac_delta on Open thread, Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 2015 · 2015-01-31T09:26:14.392Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

By that line of reasoning, we should not be funding space exploration and etc. either...

(I take his comment to mean that we should not be funding life extension research because it is egocentric.)

Comment by dirac_delta on The Importance of Sidekicks · 2015-01-08T16:35:17.023Z · score: 8 (8 votes) · LW · GW

but most of the people who have emailed me privately to thank me for the post are male.

Maybe because most LW readers are male? I am not sure it necessarily leads to the conclusion that

Men feel more shamed about wanting to be sidekicks than women do?

Comment by dirac_delta on Multiple Factor Explanations Should Not Appear One-Sided · 2014-08-10T11:35:14.889Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

It is much appreciated!

Comment by dirac_delta on Multiple Factor Explanations Should Not Appear One-Sided · 2014-08-09T10:13:29.173Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Another salient example I'm presently studying is taken from Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature. I can provide you with the details on demand.

I'm interested in the details. Thanks.

Comment by dirac_delta on [Open Thread] Stupid Questions (2014-02-17) · 2014-06-02T16:29:53.590Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I have, but my study partner insists that Prof. Lewin is wrong, and I don't know how to explain it in a way that would make it understandable to him.

Comment by dirac_delta on [Open Thread] Stupid Questions (2014-02-17) · 2014-06-02T14:10:23.595Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I'd like to solicit the help of physicists here.

I am in the process of watching Professor Walter Lewin's MIT lectures on Electricity and Magnetism. In Lecture 20, during the first fifteen minutes, Prof. Lewin criticized many textbook authors for misapplying Kirchhoff's rule when analyzing LR circuits, and clarified that Faraday's Law should be used instead. My study partner insisted that Prof. Lewin was wrong, and that Kirchhoff's rule applied in this case because the inductance came from within the circuit itself.

I would really appreciate it if anyone here could help me understand (with linked sources if necessary) whether Kirchhoff's rule is applicable here. If not, why? Can you explain it in a way that would make my study partner understand it?

Thank you in advance for all your help!

Comment by dirac_delta on Open Thread, May 26 - June 1, 2014 · 2014-05-30T11:42:28.708Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

This comment is very insightful -- you managed to articulate a lot of non-g factors that would explain my own observations. Thank you.

Comment by dirac_delta on Open Thread, May 26 - June 1, 2014 · 2014-05-28T08:58:33.100Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

There are publishers here that publish collections of old test papers (along with the solutions) that were administered over the past 10 years, and many students practise by testing themselves using those.

Comment by dirac_delta on Open Thread, May 26 - June 1, 2014 · 2014-05-28T08:53:52.325Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

This is a good question -- unfortunately, I am unable to answer this as I have no exposure to American schools.

Comment by dirac_delta on Open Thread, May 26 - June 1, 2014 · 2014-05-28T08:43:19.166Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

The way to reconcile your experience with the evidence is to note that the score on a low-stakes practice test is just not comparable to the score on the real thing (with or without test prep).

This is one possibility. Thanks for bringing it up.

Comment by dirac_delta on Open Thread, May 26 - June 1, 2014 · 2014-05-27T12:45:28.539Z · score: 21 (21 votes) · LW · GW

Hello. I've been a lurker here for quite some time now, but this is the first time I am making an appearance. I would like to consult everyone here regarding what I perceive to be irrationality on my part. I hope that you will be patient towards me and refrain from downvoting out of irritation, as I would prefer not to have my comment hidden, since that would greatly reduce my chances of getting feedback.

The issue is this: while I am fully aware that anecdotes do not constitute data, I have a very difficult time believing that test preparation only has a modest positive effect (if any) on SAT scores, even though this has been noted by several studies. Such a finding is completely incongruent with my personal experiences growing up in an East Asian country where most students (regardless of their socioeconomic status) attend cram schools or hire after-school private tutors -- many of these students have managed to perform much better than they otherwise would have, due to the extra lessons and revision. (They usually go through several iterations of testing themselves using old SAT papers before sitting for the actual test, and there are often very significant gains -- sometimes as high as several hundred points -- in their performances.)

So, my request to my fellow LW readers is this: Please help me reconcile this jarring chasm between research findings and my own personal experiences. There might be some information I am missing that is contributing to my inability to believe the findings. Is there anyone here who has done extensive reading on this topic?