Vladimir_Nesov comments on It's all in your head-land - Less Wrong

32 Post author: colinmarshall 22 July 2009 07:41PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (67)

Comments (67)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 26 July 2009 07:37:25AM *  -1 points [-]

The words you used in the original comment don't lend themselves to the new interpretation. There was nothing about teaching in them:

(One psychology professor wrote how, once he began using PCT models to design experiments, his results were actually too good -- his colleagues began advising him on ways to make changes so that his results would be more vague and ambiguous... and therefore more publishable!)

Comment author: Cyan 26 July 2009 03:08:49PM *  7 points [-]

There's no contradiction between what pjeby wrote in his original comment and what he wrote subsequently about Marken. In this exchange, you seem to me to be suffering from a negative halo effect -- your (possibly fair) assessment of pjeby's interests and goals in writing on this site have made you uncharitable about this particular anecdote.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 26 July 2009 04:31:44PM *  4 points [-]

You are right, I didn't reread the first Eby's comment in full before replying on the second, losing the context, and now that I did, even my first comment seems worded incorrectly.

Comment author: conchis 26 July 2009 03:17:17PM *  1 point [-]

But the subsequent comment was supposed to provide support for the original comment. (It was proffered in response to a request for such support). It therefore seems reasonable to criticise it if it fails to do so, doesn't it?

ETA: Apologies. This comment was stupid. I should learn to read. Withdrawn.

ETA2: Please don't upvote this! I shouldn't be able to gain karma by saying stupid things and then admitting that they were stupid. If we want to incentivise renouncing stupid comments, we should presumably downvote the originals and upvote the renunciations so that the net effect is zero. (Or, if you think the original was correct, I guess you could upvote it and downvote the renunciation.)

Comment author: Cyan 26 July 2009 03:36:25PM *  3 points [-]

But the subsequent comment was supposed to provide support for the original comment.

It did. See the first excerpt pjeby quoted in reply to orthonormal's query.

Comment author: conchis 26 July 2009 03:46:28PM *  1 point [-]

Sorry. You're right. I'm an idiot.

Comment author: pjeby 26 July 2009 04:20:13PM *  4 points [-]

Yes, there's nothing about teaching there. What's your point? The only reason I mentioned the teaching aspect is to debunk the nonsense you were spewing about him not being able to be published.

(For someone who claims to want to keep discussion quality high, and who claims to not want to get involved in long threads with me, you sure do go out of your way to start them, not to mention filling them misconceptions and projections.)

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit