= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wnoise comments on Less Wrong NYC: Case Study of a Successful Rationalist Chapter - 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 (166)
You know, I'm honestly not entirely sure whether "waaaaaay on the right of the bell curve" means that "LW does much more than average group of treating people like they are silly", or that "LW is much better than the average group at not treating people like they are silly".
Ha! I see I assumed too much and miscommunicated by under-communicating...again.
I meant LW treats people like they are silly, none of their core values are beyond question, their imagined reasons are confabulations, and their real reasons reek of bias, irrationality, and anti-epistemology.
It doesn't seem at all correct to say "average men treat women like they're silly, but rationalists don't do that!"
Sure, rationalists treat men as silly too, which might be what is meant, but I think that part of the statement is literally false.
So we have a statement of the general form "X does Y, but we don't." This is the sort of statement that people are liable to say even when it's false, so we should heavily discount the weight that we would give to their personal opinion (because it might be biased.) Instead, we should hug the query -- gather more evidence (as unfiltered as we can -- statistics may be more unbiased than pure anecdote) or display that which has been gathered, instead of ignoring the possibility that the claim is factually true. If the claim is false, the evidence should tell us that as well.