= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kevin comments on Debunking komponisto on Amanda Knox (long) - 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 (116)
So edited, though I would have thought it obvious.
If you post here more often, you'll learn that certain linguistic patterns are required for the community to not get annoyed at you when making strong-sounding conclusions. Try not to take it too seriously.
One regular poster here is a current theist. He has a lot of karma because he surrounds many of his statements in self-doubt.
I completely agree with you that surrounding my statements with self-doubt would have increased my karma.
However, I do not agree that this is a sufficient reason to surround my statements with self-doubt. As I said, I don't care about karma.
I do care about things that often correlate with karma, such as accuracy and insight. If there is evidence that surrounding these statements with self-doubt will increase my accuracy, I will do it. Therefore, I look forward to any evidence proffered that my claim C1 is incorrect (such as an argument that one of komponisto's four statements I've charged to be misleading is, in fact, correct). So far, I have not heard any such evidence in this thread.
For example, ":s/Knox//g" helps.
More seriously, that phenomenon extends far beyond LessWrong and applies particularly when the comments are personal (or reflect on an individual fairly directly).
Again, empirically, ":s/Knox is guilty/Knox is innocent/g" helps even more.
Unless people think that "voting up comments you agree with and voting down things you disagree with" only happens on other sites, in which case I'm curious by what mechanism you think this is enforced on this site.
It'd help if you picked a group belief that's actually demonstrably wrong to illustrate this, but you picked a hella wrong target this time around. Did you read through ~700 or so comments on the other Knox posts, or only the original posts?
The dynamic you mention is certainly present (and, there is some benefit to allowing disagreement at least a partial influence on votes). Unfortunately, in this instance it is hard to distinguish simple disagreement from disapproval of bad arguments and prvalent logical rudeness. The same people who disagree with Knox being guilty are people who object to the type of reasoning used to support this contention. That's part of how they became convinced of her innocence in the first place.
What does this mean?
It's unix-speak for 'replace all instances of the string Knox with the empty string'.
That as time goes by more rehashing of the Knox issue becomes less desirable. Anything with 'Knox' in it becomes a negative linguistic pattern.
The command ":s/Knox//g" replaces the pattern 'Knox' with the '' empty string using perl like regexp syntax.