wedrifid comments on Let them eat cake: Interpersonal Problems vs Tasks - Less Wrong

70 Post author: HughRistik 07 October 2009 04:35PM

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

Comments (568)

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

Comment author: wedrifid 10 October 2009 06:50:50PM *  2 points [-]

I don't know what else "the quality of this site" could refer to.

A somewhat greater ability (and tendency) to make statements for purposes other than signalling. I for example, often point out fallacies in comments even when they argue for positions that I support. In many cases these rebuttals could be labelled 'frightening/scary'. If participants on LessWrong are closer in nature to myself than those in the general population are then I am less likely to take epistemic claims to be evidence of threat.

I support Kompos suggestion that significant benefit of the doubt should be given to posters when it comes to inferring danger from speaking on 'scary/frightening' topics. I do not believe I am owed more sex from anyone. The chain of inference 'Wedrifid supports people being allowed to say scary things -> Wedrifid believes scary things -> Wedrifid is likely to do scary things -> Wedrifid is dangerous' would not be a reasonable one to make in this circumstance.

Comment author: DanArmak 10 October 2009 07:05:25PM 0 points [-]

I for example, often point out fallacies in comments even when they argue for positions that I support.

Thus signaling your rationality, which confers value in this community :-)

I support Kompos suggestion that significant benefit of the doubt should be given to posters when it comes to inferring danger from speaking on 'scary/frightening'.

I do agree with this. This being a rationality discussion site, we should absolutely be allowed to argue in support of any positions we actually hold, which may turn out to be scary or not. Only when the argument has taken place can the taboo option be (in theory) considered.

Comment author: wedrifid 10 October 2009 07:14:28PM 0 points [-]

Thus signaling your rationality, which confers value in this community :-)

The status consequences are certainly lower here than elsewhere. However, my observations suggest that this the payoff is still negative, particularly when topics of any moral significance are being discussed in the context. We aren't that much Less Wrong.

Comment author: DanArmak 10 October 2009 08:16:00PM 2 points [-]

I think a major reason why the LW community works and can derive useful insights, is that once we make rationality and objective truth our goals and deliberately associate them with higher status (via karma for instance), status seeking works in our favor.

Comment author: wedrifid 11 October 2009 04:15:12AM 0 points [-]

It is certainly makes a noticeable difference compared to other communities I have been involved in with similar emphasis on intellectual pursuits (MENSA and university faculties).