= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
sfb comments on Tallinn-Evans $125,000 Singularity Challenge - 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 (369)
The problem is quite simple. Tim, and the rest of the class of commenters to which you refer, simply haven't learned how to lose. This can be fixed by making it clear that this community's respect is contingent on retracting any inaccurate positions. Posts in which people announce that they have changed their mind are usually upvoted (in contrast to other communities), but some people don't seem to have noticed.
Therefore, I propose adding a "plonk" button on each comment. Pressing it would hide all posts from that user for a fixed duration, and also send them an anonymous message (red envelope) telling them that someone plonked them, which post they were plonked for, and a form letter reminder that self-consistency is not a virtue and a short guide to losing gracefully.
Translation: I haven't managed to convince you therefore you must be punished for your insolent behaviour of not being convinced by my arguments. I cannot walk away from this and leave you being wrong, you must profess to agree with me and if you are not rational enough to understand and accept logical arguments then you will be forced to profess agreement.
Who did you say hasn't learned how to lose?
Warn, then ban the people involved.
If you decide that refusing to be convinced by evidence while also unable to convincingly counter it, and at the same time continuing to argue is bad form for the LW that you want to create, then stand by that decision and act on it.
On a site called "Less Wrong," is that terribly surprising?
I never said anything about using force. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's a different position, not a translation.
If you can clarify the distinction you draw between the use of force and the use of punishments to modify behavior and why that distinction is important, I'd be interested.
Of course. The defining difference is that force can't be ignored, so threatening a punishment only constitutes force if the punishment threatened is strong enough; condemnation doesn't count unless it comes with additional consequences. Force is typically used in the short term to ensure conformance with plans, while behaviour modification is more like long-term groundwork. Well executed behaviour modifications stay in place with minimal maintenance, but the targets of force will become more hostile with each application. If you use a behaviour modification strategy when you should be using force, people may defy you when you can ill afford it. If you use force when you should be using behavior modification strategies, you will accumulate enemies you don't need.
Makes sense.
So, if sfb edits the parent to read "then we will rely on punishment to modify your behavior so you profess agreement" instead of "then you will be forced to profess agreement," that addresses your objection?
You (probably) know what I meant, and whether or not you mentioned force specifically - either way doesn't change the gist of the "translation". A weasely objection.
What is your opinion on the use of memory charms to modify behavior?
Memory charms do have their uses. Unfortunately, they seem to only work in universes where minds are ontologically basic mental entities, and the potions available in this universe are not fast, reliable or selective enough to be adequate substitutes.
Interesting, I would have guessed that memory modification would be easier when minds aren't ontologically basic mental entities because there are then actual parts of the mind that one can target.
We don't have tools sharp enough to get a grip on those parts, yet.