= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jimrandomh comments on Boo lights: groupthink edition - 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 (69)
Lots of different words and phrases "devalue" different technical terms, since they exist outside of their technical definition. From what I can see from the OED, group think has been used as a term since 1923 and similar phrases like group mind were used in the late 19th century. Because someone makes a definition in a field it does not strip the original word or phrase of its meaning. If that was the case I'm sure lawyers would have a field day with all of us and that I could pick out quite a few misuses of onto on this site.
The technical meaning you point to is interesting. However, it does not even apply to this site as no one here is making decisions by committee, this is a forum/group blog. I'm surprised you pointed to it as the culture here has some of the pathologies mentioned, such as:
These two aren't really as much are your fault, it's a bummer we can't access/share academic articles that pertain to many of the subjects discussed here.
A little more trouble for this site is the solutions though:
Obvious trouble.
One of Eliezer's biggest flaw's is his high opinion of himself and those that agree with him:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/25848?in=49:06&out=49:12
Along with it the wholesale writing off of others that he knows very little of. From Eliezer's point of view there are very few, if any, experts of any worth to consult on many issues at all. This sort of thought is toxic for collaboration with others and can be profoundly isolating.
The history of this site is not very long and it should not surprise anyone that most around here tow the Eliezer line. He created this site after becoming a smallish blog celebrity on overcomingbias. That those that came to populate this site largely agree with him should not at all be surprising. That you think no one should be able to charge groupthink comes off as incredibly defense and really silly given that it would be a little shocking if it wasn't here.
Now to try to be constructive, here are some things that could facilitate interesting discussions around here:
The time when FAI was banned seemed to have a much more diverse and interesting discourse. Why retread the same old topics when you could explore new things that no one here knows what 'Rationality' should say about it?
Let's see some algorithms/programs or something besides overly long posts. I bet some cool stuff could come out of it. Why argue about which two things are better when you could try to see by testing it. Go empiricism.
Downvoted for wasting my time with many paragraphs of empty status signals, making an unreasonable request for censorship, and demanding work (software) that you don't have the right to ask for.
This was done in the past and I think it was a great request.
It was a suggestion that I think people here would enjoy doing. I always have fun when I'm coding something experimental (of course these things are always fun until they're not).
Interesting charge. Don't worry though, I caught your hostile signals.
Sorry, that came off more strongly than I intended. I think the main reason I reacted that way is because your post seemed to put status concerns above truth. In particular, this paragraph
Alleges that Less Wrong members are committing groupthink without claiming that they're actually wrong about anything. That cleanly separates further discussion from the facts of any particular matter, and, while I acknowledge that this is an Eliezerish view to hold, I consider that a very bad thing.
Technically, that was only a moratorium. But more to the point, topics come and go on Less Wrong, posts about particular topics tend to be temporally clustered, and there're always some complaints about the current topic du jour. I wouldn't worry about cryonics and FAI crowding out other topics; there've been enough posts about them recently that there isn't much left to say, so we probably won't hear much about them for awhile.