It does help create familiarity with the culture. I have of course also read up on Bayesianism. I specifically said I wasn't interested in the sequences. I read stuff from Eliezer before they existed. I see no need to read more of the same. Be more careful not to misquote.

I don't know how this is a misquote. You didn't know the details of Cox's theorem (it wasn't even clear you were familiar with the theorem).

I said:

You may have valid points to make but it might help in getting people to listen to you if you don't exhibit apparent double standards. In particular, your main criticism seems to be that people aren't reading Popper's texts and related texts enough. Yet, at the same time, you are apparently unaware of the basic philosophical arguments for Bayesianism. This doesn't reduce the validity of anything you have to say but as an issue of trying to get people to listen, it isn't going to work well with fallible humans.

You then replied:

Learning enough Bayesian stuff to sound like a Bayesian so people want to listen to me more sounds to me like more trouble than it's worth, no offense. I'm perfectly willing to read more things when I make a mistake and there is a specific thing which explains the issue. I have been reading various things people refer me to. If you wanted me to study Bayesian stuff for a month before speaking, well, I'd get bored because I would see flaws and then see them repeated, and then read arguments which depend on them. I did read the whole HP fic if that helps.

Neither of us made any mention of the sequences (which in any event wouldn't be great reading for this purpose- very little of them actually has to do with Bayesianism directly.)

Your link showing that you read an academic paper on Bayesianism occurs 30 hours after your above comment. Even if you were trying specifically to understand the culture of LW (not something stated in your earlier remark) reading HPMR is an awful way of going about it. So I don't understand your point at all.

In any event, whether or not you intended to mean something else isn't terrible relevant to the point I was trying to make: comments which try to include reading incomplete Harry Potter fanfic as legitimate evidence of having done one's research are not high quality remarks and seriously undermine your credibility.