XiXiDu comments on Where do I most obviously still need to say "oops"? - Less Wrong

5 Post author: lukeprog 22 November 2011 01:48AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (62)

Tags: rationality

Comments (62)

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: XiXiDu 22 November 2011 09:42:15AM 3 points [-]

The questions that I really care about, the important questions, are either not solved yet or it is everyone versus the "SIAI memeplex".

All of the following people would disagree with the Singularity Institute on some major issues: Douglas Hofstadter, Steven Pinker, Massimo Pigliucci, Greg Egan, Holden Karnofsky, Robin Hanson, John Baez, Katja Grace, Ben Goertzel...just to name a few. Even your top donor thinks that the Seaststeading Institute deserves more money than the Singularity Institute. And in the end they would either be ignored, downvoted, called stupid or their disagreement a result of motivated cognition.

Comment author: wedrifid 22 November 2011 11:43:08AM * -1 points [-]

Comment author: XiXiDu 22 November 2011 11:59:28AM * 0 points [-]

...my downvotes of Ben Goertzel and suggestions that he was stupid are not based on motivated cognition...

Never said that.

The impressiveness of his name (that thing which causes you to refer to him as an authority)...

WTF? I don't think that he has any authority. This essay pretty much shows that he is a dreamer. Two quotes from the essay:

“Of course, this faith placed in me and my team by strangers was flattering. But I felt it was largely justified. We really did have a better idea about how to make computers think. We really did know how to predict the markets using the news.”

“We AI folk were talking so enthusiastically, even the businesspeople in the company were starting to get excited. This AI engine that had been absorbing so much time and money, now it was about to bear fruit and burst forth upon the world!”

Pfft.

Comment author: wedrifid comment score below threshold [+] (20 children)

Comment author: XiXiDu 22 November 2011 01:20:44PM * 5 points [-]

By listing people who would be downvoted as though it is a significant fact it implies that they have status such that they deserve to be mentioned in that context.

The suggestion was to get feedback from experts on matters of rationality. I listed some people and listed some possible reactions. This doesn't imply that I believe that those people are actually worthy of being asked or that the reactions would be unjustified.

There are various problems, 1.) there are not many people that are on the same level as LW 2.) a lot of those people who are not part of the "SIAI memeplex", as Luke called it, actually disagree on important issues 3.) there is a lack of critical examination and debate with those that are critical of SI key positions. Especially #3 tends to be problematic as disagreement is often met with the mentioned reactions, which doesn't imply that the reactions are not justified, but unhelpful.

The fact that someone is actually worthy of downvotes has rather significant implications on whether or not motivated cognition must be involved in the downvoting.

I never said that there is any motivated cognition involved in the downvoting of people on LW. I said that people on LW are sometimes claiming that their opponents disagreement is caused by motivated cognition, that the people who disagree with LW are often disagreeing due to motivated cognition.

To summarize: a place to receive feedback on issues of rationality from outsiders wouldn't work out in my opinion as long as the people on LW are not willing to dissolve the disagreement but rather tend to ignore or simply downvote their opponents because they are perceived to be stupid etc. (which might very well be justified).

Comment author: [deleted] 23 November 2011 05:40:53AM * 2 points [-]

Upvoting and agreeing.

This is more about LW in general, than to Luke personally, but I do feel that this site has a strong "cult" feel to it. I think there are a lot of things that rational people might disagree with LW consensus on, and instead of welcoming non-LW ideas, people say that they aren't rational.

For example, I think that if 500 people all thought about AI and FAI rationally and independently, they wouldn't all just happen to come to the exact same conclusions considering that there are so many unknowns. But the group-think here is such that anyone with a differing opinion is kept out. I am actually thinking about making a post on this, but we'll see how busy I am.

Comment author: lessdazed 23 November 2011 06:51:16AM * 2 points [-]

people say that they aren't [censored].

That would be an awful group habit. Narrowness, specificity, is a virtue. Show me something written on the subject by Ben Goetzel, and I'll show you specific logical fallacies.

Comment author: prase 23 November 2011 10:41:47AM 0 points [-]

I like your censorship.

Comment author: [deleted] 23 November 2011 06:13:38AM 0 points [-]

And my point is only strengthened by the fact that anytime I use LW-speak and say things that agree with LW consensus they are quickly upvoted, but any time that I say things that are non-LW consensus, they are quickly downvoted (see above).

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 23 November 2011 02:14:15PM 4 points [-]

There exist hundreds of LW readers, and downvotes don't mean that the majority disapproves, it means that atleast one out of those hundreds of readers disapproved with a downvote. (Or more precisely that n+1 readers disapproved with a downvote where n readers approved with an upvote)

As such arguments of the style "I got downvoted for speaking against group consensus, therefore LessWrong is exhibiting groupthink" don't seem that convincing to me. Even if that was the only reason you got downvoted, even if it was a completely unjust downvote -- it just means that one reader was exhibiting groupthink behaviour and downvoted you unjustly for going against the norm.

Comment author: [deleted] 23 November 2011 04:50:25PM * 8 points [-]

First, I want to agree that not every downvote is due to being against group consensus. Sometimes posts (including my own) just aren't well thought out.

I also agree that a downvote only represents one person and not the whole of the LW community. In fact I've thought it would be interesting to be able to see how many upvotes and downvotes each comment has. There's a massive difference between a comment with a score of 0 (or any other score) that got there because 20 people upvoted it and 20 people downvoted it, versus a score of 0 because nobody voted for it at all. The first kind of comment is more likely to be interesting and controversial.

However, I would argue that it doesn't take many people to effect a culture. If there were no moderation, how many trolls do you think it would take to significantly lower the LW quality?

Let's back up and take a macro view (something LWers seem to dislike, but which I think is often necessary.); If posting a non-consensus view tends to result in a negative or 0 karma, and posting a consensus view tends to result in positive karma, then it is likely that people are going to post consensus views much more often than non-consensus views. Even if no one admits it consciously, I would bet the karma system has at least a subconscious effect on what people post.

Because people post consensus views more often, people tend to agree with the consensus more. For example if consensus view has 10 good posts/comments supporting it and nonconsensus view has 0-1 good posts/comments supporting it, then you have seen more and better arguments for the consensus view, and are more likely to believe that.

As a site leans more and more toward a single worldview, people with differing worldviews start actively staying away. If I was a rationalist who rationally thought that the Singularity and FAI weren't the most pressing concerns right now, the chances are low that I would want to join this site. Without having a wide range of views to moderate opinion, consensus becomes like a runaway train becoming progressively more one-sided.

From personal experience, I've known pretty much sense I've joined this site that it's not the sort of place I'd want to stay around. I'll stay around for a month or two, learn what I can from here, and go my merry way. The reason not being random downvotes, which I really don't care about, but rather the resulting culture which I do in fact consider to be an echo chamber that has never learned to argue politely. (In the article I just linked to, I would say that LW is in "Draft 2" stage.)

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 23 November 2011 05:43:45PM * 5 points [-]

If posting a non-consensus view tends to result in a negative or 0 karma, and posting a consensus view tends to result in positive karma, then it is likely that people are going to post consensus views much more often than non-consensus views.

I likewise object to those who mindlessly downvote or upvote. On my part I think nonsensical upvotes are worse than nonsensical downvotes, though, as it causes karma inflation. There exist people who'll upvote people just for saying "Hi", and I'm guessing they upvote every other comment they see. This rewards quantity instead of quality -- which serves to reduce quality.

Without having a wide range of views to moderate opinion, consensus becomes like a runaway train becoming progressively more one-sided.

This is largely what the article on Evaporative cooling of group beliefs is about. But I don't know how to fix this perceived problem, except to encourage you to speak and post about those non-consensus positions.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 24 November 2011 12:53:29AM * 1 point [-]

If I was a rationalist who rationally thought that [...]

Bayes, sister!

continue this thread »

Comment author: [deleted] 24 November 2011 12:45:48AM * 0 points [-]

If I was a rationalist who rationally thought that the Singularity and FAI weren't the most pressing concerns right now, the chances are low that I would want to join this site.

I'm of two minds on this. If FAI can happen, then it's far and away more important than anything else (even if it can't, the problems solved along the way will still be hugely impactful). That said, it is interesting to imagine what a motivated community of rationalists could do in the here and now, with death still looming, never to be beaten.

And of course, "could do" never exactly amounts to "would do."

Comment author: lessdazed 23 November 2011 05:05:51PM 0 points [-]

a macro view (something LWers seem to dislike

Why do you say?

continue this thread »

Comment author: antigonus 23 November 2011 06:26:37AM * 1 point [-]

For what it's worth, I've posted a fair number of things in my short time here that go against what I assume to be consensus, and I've mostly only been upvoted for them. (This includes posts that come close to making the cult comparison.)

Comment author: XiXiDu 22 November 2011 01:27:54PM 2 points [-]

Erm, before you waste more time on this issue, you are right that Ben Goertzel was a bad, or even completely misplaced choice for the category of people I wanted to list.

Comment author: lessdazed 22 November 2011 07:28:53PM * 0 points [-]

And in the end they would either be ignored, downvoted, called stupid or their disagreement a result of motivated cognition.

"Called" both referred to the named people and linked "their disagreement" to "a result of motivated cognition". It's a syllepsis.

And in the end they would either be ignored, downvoted, or called stupid, or their disagreement was called a result of motivated cognition.

XiXiDu comments on Where do I most obviously still need to say "oops"? - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (62)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (62)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login