= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on If reason told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (41)
Read through the sequences, dammit.
Indeed. Maybe start with Rationality is Systematized Winning. Giving a few examples of people failing at rationality is not an effective criticism of rationality.
Taleb's books are interesting and he makes quite a few good points but the man has a lot of flaws. Eric Falkenstein sums up the case against him quite well.
I maintain that, of all the paradigm-altering and life-improving concepts I've gained from the sequences, the one derived from that post was the most important.
Literally nothing else we do here makes sense without it.
And I'm voting this up, for the same reasons.
I'm voting this down because you so often respond to people with something like "Read the sequences" without deigning to mention any specific problems. That's high-handed and cult-leader-like. It's also unhelpful to someone even if they take your advice and read the sequences, because they're not likely to figure out the connections between them and what they said in their post.
At the very least, recommending one specific post to read would a great improvement.
I upvoted EY's comment, but very much agree with your comment. I am still plugging through the sequences and appreciate the, "This was answered, dummy." response, but I prefer, "This was answered over here, dummy."
In terms of actually increasing rationality in other people, getting short with them is probably counter-productive. But I get the frustration of dealing with noobs like me. I prefer the harshness because the feedback is clearer but I imagine that not everyone is like me.
Downvoted the parent (I have no doubt someone will rectify the temporary negative total). I hate high handed behaviour and so crying wolf over cult like high handedness is an instrumental detriment to me.
I would have upvoted if the expressed reasoning was "Downvoted for not providing the necessary reference to the sequence that would make the confusion obvious. It would not be hard for you to find the link matthew found and leaving it off is presumptive and makes you look kinda like a tool."
(ETA: Good change. Vote now neutral.)