Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on The Conjunction Fallacy Does Not Exist - Less Wrong

-38 Post author: curi 10 April 2011 10:35PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (113)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 11 April 2011 07:08:01AM 2 points [-]

Post removed from main and discussion on grounds that I've never seen anything voted down that far before. Page will still be accessible to those who know the address.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 April 2011 11:00:54AM *  4 points [-]

Outliers are interesting. If it was me, I'd be checking it out.

Comment author: lessdazed 11 April 2011 04:32:46PM 6 points [-]

I agree. "...on grounds that I've never seen anything voted down that far before..." isn't literally true in the strictest possible sense. Implicitly, it means the editor also did not think of any sufficiently compelling counter-arguments upon reading the piece.

So unless removal for being downvoted by orders of magnitude more than anything else (including those previously removed, to avoid evaporative cooling) was the rule before the editor removed the post, the content of the post had a good deal to do with its removal.

I am not saying it is the wrong decision because of this, but I would prefer the formulation: "Post removed from main and discussion on grounds that I've never seen anything voted down that far before, and it seems to me the downvotes are probably justified."

It's important not to imply the post's removal wasn't a matter of editorial judgement, since it was, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Arguably no one will be misled, and the editorial explanation by EY is perfect and Gricean.

There's "still something sort of awesome about a guy who could take on the entire western world from a cave somewhere.". I began writing but did not post three posts of my own for this site because I think them not good enough. One is about Newcomb's problem, one is about tattoos, and one is about cooking.

Comment author: [deleted] 12 April 2011 12:12:00AM *  3 points [-]

It's important not to imply the post's removal wasn't a matter of editorial judgement, since it was, not that there's anything wrong with that.

I have no issue with people making editorial judgements provided they are upfront about it. On the face of it, EY is saying he removed the post purely on the basis of popularity, as though he is deferring judgement to others. You assert he wasn't and that no-one would be misled but if you just leave things implied there is a lot of scope for misunderstanding and it is a way of not taking responsibility.

Comment author: Icelus 12 April 2011 07:06:51AM 3 points [-]

It seems vote scores of EY posts about site-related actions and discussion turn into agree/disagree, so based on that the consensus is this was a good action.

But I would like to have a comment here at least voicing the opinion (my opinion on this coincidentally) that just displaying a low vote score is enough to warn people that don't want to read things that get low vote scores.