The "confidence interval" line should have a percentage ("What's your 95% confidence interval?").

"You make a compelling case for infanticide."

"Can you link me to that study?"

"I think I'm going to solve psychology." ("I think I'm going to solve metaethics." "I think I'm going to solve Friendliness.")

"My elephant wants a brownie."

"Is that your true rejection?"

"I wanna be an upload!"

"Does that beat Reedspacer's Lower Bound?"

"Let's not throw all our money at the Society for Rare Diseases in Cute Puppies."

"I have akrasia."

"I'm cryocrastinating."

"Do that and you'll wind up with the universe tiled in paperclips."

"So after we take over the world..."

"I want to optimize for fungibility here."

"This looks like a collective action problem."

"We can dissolve this question." ("That's a dissolved question.")

"My model of you likes this."

"Have you read Goedel, Escher, Bach?"

"What do the statistics say about cases in this reference class?"

"You should read the Sequences."
"It's not like Gandhi has little XML tags on that say 'moral' "
"It's not like natural selection put little XML tags there that say 'purpose'."
"Sure, I'd take a pill that made me bisexual."
"There's this really great fanfiction you should read."
"Oh man I wanna tile the universe with ice cream trees."
"I don't want to tile the universe with bananas and palm trees."

[Sequence that will be incredibly funny in context but is a terrible idea please for goodness' sake (literally) nobody film it]

"No, we're not a cult."
"We're not a cult or anything."
"It's not like organizations have little XML tags that say 'cult' and 'not cult'"
"Any organization with a good cause can have cult attractors"
"Look I'd explain it but there's a lot of inferential distance and I don't want to be condescending."
"We are not a cult. We are not a cult."

"Did you just generalize from fictional evidence?"

"You're a one-boxer, right?" (Said with no context.)

"You'd choose specks, right?" (Said with no context.)

"Mysteriousness is not a property of a thing."

"You're running on corrupted hardware."

"Replace the symbol with the substance."

"Could you regenerate that knowledge?"

"Consider a group you feel prejudiced against, frequentists for example."

"But what's the best textbook on that subject?"

"Is that a compartmentalized belief?

"I notice I am confused."

"Of course I have super-powers. Everyone does."

"Beliefs are properly probabilistic."

"Is that your confidence level inside or outside the argument?"

"Did you credibly pre-commit to that rule?"

"That's just what it feels like from the inside."

"Conceptspace is bigger than you imagine."

"No you don't believe you believe that."

"No, money is the unit of caring."

"If that doesn't work out for you, you can still make six figures as a programmer."

"Purpose is not an inherent property."

"You think intr... (read more)

If a "Shit Rationalists Say" thread would result in net positive utility, I want to believe that a "Shit Rationalists Say" thread would result in net positive utility.

If a "Shit Rationalists Say" thread would not result in net positive utility, I want to believe that a "Shit Rationalists Say" thread would not result in net positive utility.

Let me not become attached to beliefs I may not want.

"Oops."

I've thought a "shit your brain says" might be a good way of compactly presenting some cognitive biases.

"So you know the My Little Pony episode about bayesian updating?"

One huge category of utterances remains unrepresented:

"Ooh, is there a new Methods of Rationality chapter up yet?"

"I can't believe there's no new chapter yet."

"Have you read Methods of Rationality? You have to read it, OMG."

Cached thoughts are the mindkiller.

Took every quote posted in this thread so far and Markov-ised it. (Depth of 1, i.e., each word only depends on the word before it. A depth of 2 basically regurgitates the input in this case.)

Here are some of the results:

"How do you regenerate that beat Reedspacer's Lower Bound?"

"It's a more karma. I interpreted your map, not a group you feel prejudiced against, frequentists for infanticide."

"Look, just generalize from halo effect."

"Okay, but in this is rational under them to make six figures as a cult."

"Beliefs are just an inferential distance and my belief is the territory."

"That's just a survey should do you measure, not throw all the scientific knowledge a dissolved question."

"Any organization with the teacher's password."

"That's just rejecting religion and closely guarded secret, so it but there's no idea how BIG thingspace is."

"Foo is the karma system more likely."

"You make six figures as a thousand shards of inferential distance and I cooperate."

"Conceptspace is white."

"Go ahead and only if and it's objective, but I think he's just what the Nazis did!"

"... (read more)

"How do you know that?"

"Have I interpreted your position correctly?"

"That's uncomputable."

"That AI would destroy the world."

"That's a fact about your map, not about the territory."

"That's a duplicate quote."

"What does this have to with rationality?"

"That word doesn't carve reality at its joints."

"I want to do an AI Box experiment."

"Apply the reversal test! You're suggesting we kill all the old people."

"I wish I could self-modify to . . ."

"I'd say something politically incorrect about race, but it would start a flame war."

"I'd say something politically incorrect about gender, but it would start a flame war."

"I'd say something politically incorrect about my ability to say politically incorrect things, but it would start a flame war."

"Karma is being used to suppress dissent."

"Your position is incoherent unless you're a vegetarian."

"Rationality isn't that great."

"We should do a survey on this."

"That survey should have been bigger. We should do another survey."

"Way too much of the scientific lit... (read more)

Post title should be "Shit LWers say". Not all Bayesians sound like regulars on this website.

Rationalist PUA:

"What's you number? [...] No not that. Your Erdos number."

Rationalist insults:

"...Frequentist."

While twirling a paperclip: "I do not love you, nor do I hate you." (well, more of a threat.)

"I bet (73%) that you're a really consistent person. The sort of person whose decisions are final. Like say, in Monty Hall."

"Name three.."

"Source?"

"What Shock Level are you?"

Wow, most of that looks really weird, and putting it all together like that seems to associate 'rationalist' with 'weird object-level beliefs'.

From RationalWiki:

How to spot a LessWrongian in your sceptical discussion

In the outside world, the ugly manifests itself as LessWrong acolytes, minds freshly blown, metastasising to other sites, bringing the Good News for Modern Rationalists, without clearing their local jargon cache. Sceptical discussion spaces will often have people show up labelling themselves "rationalist" and being as irritating as teenage nerds who've just discovered Ayn Rand. Take one drink for each of:

"As rationalists, we should ..."

"As a rationalist, you