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

pjeby comments on Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism - Less Wrong

105 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 21 April 2009 02:44AM

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

Comments (312)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: pjeby 21 April 2009 03:13:36AM 1 point [-]

Um, so, who is the fool you're talking about, or are you just speaking hypothetically?

Comment author: byrnema 21 April 2009 04:42:07AM *  4 points [-]

Definitely I'm one of them. Or just me. I've been posting a lot in ineffective directions and my ideas don't seem aligned well with the group. Sorry, Eliezer. I enjoyed my LW experience -- it is a fun community. Best.

(Written later:) Reading through MrHen's comment, it is interesting to me that we are both new to the group (I'm 2 weeks older) and both feel like posers. (We have karma scores around 55). I think it is interesting that in response to a general reprimand from Eliezer, we both had similar thoughts in our heads (I claim this) but responded quite differently. I have heard before that a gender difference when it comes to grant resubmission in the sciences is that women take the first rejection personally and don't resubmit at the same rate. While MrHen requested more feedback, I wanted to make an apology and exit before I further offended, even though I wasn't certain to what extent it was me.

Was my guess that the "fool is me" an overly sensitive response to criticism? I was worried that my harping on religion might be factious, and so I already felt guilty.

How does a person know if they don't fit, or if their ideas align well enough?

Comment author: AnnaSalamon 21 April 2009 11:56:57AM 12 points [-]

My impression: anyone serious who wants to participate should feel free to do so in the welcome thread. You can ask feedback there on what background understandings or goals are expected; you can share your reasons for being a theist and ask if others have good responses; etc.

If this isn’t the case, perhaps we should create an explicit “Newcomers’ questions”, or “Background” thread, specifically for being a place where people without the expected LW background can ask for help, question conclusions the rest of the community wants to take as established and move on from (e.g., concerning theism), etc.?

I agree with cyphergoth that it would be nice to have certain background material that can be assumed in LW conversations, so that we can maintain a high level of conversation throughout most of LW.

I also think it would be a pity for byrnema to just leave, given the skills and willingness to learn that she’s demonstrated in her posts.

If we want to be a vibrant community, we’ll probably need to both maintain high-quality discussions most places, so that we can establish things and move on, and also to create “bridges” so that folks who have something to contribute but who don’t yet quite meet the rather high demands for full LW contribution can (preferably interactively) gain that background. (For example, I’m concerned that we don’t have more teens or even undergrad-aged people here. Of the 234 people who completed my recent survey, 5 are under eighteen, and 15 others are eighteen to twenty -- compared to 57 who are twenty-two to twenty-four. It’s hard to have the full prereqs while young, but a good rationalist movement needs to help its kids train.)

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 21 April 2009 01:46:02PM 2 points [-]

I agree. Members who feel unsure of their ability to contribute at their current level should refrain from commenting too much, and think about what they say more carefully (but they shouldn't be strongly segregated). General questions that would otherwise be short articles may be asked in the Newcommers' threads, a combination of Welcome thread and Ideas you are not ready to post thread, but separate from Open threads.

Comment author: Simulacra 21 April 2009 05:37:53AM 4 points [-]

Although I wouldn't go so far as to assert that I speak for the majority of the community (although I hope I do), my view is that so long as you are making a good faith effort to contribute and grow along with the community you are okay. After looking over your comment/post history I will say that I have no doubts that you are making such an effort.

Comment author: orthonormal 21 April 2009 06:50:33AM 10 points [-]

I'd be very surprised if Eliezer was obliquely referring to you. You've said things that go against the consensus here, but they've been of generally good quality.

I would presume that Eliezer has specifically told any banning candidates exactly why their contributions are problematic, and that he's withholding named examples here out of politeness. So if you haven't had a serious rebuke about your conduct on LW, I don't think you're implicated.

Comment author: JulianMorrison 21 April 2009 08:09:52AM 8 points [-]

Look, if E wants to stomp you, expect to feel it. The whole point of the above is that he sees no virtue in holding back.

Comment author: pjeby 21 April 2009 12:10:26PM *  5 points [-]

Was my guess that the "fool is me" an overly sensitive response to criticism?

Probably, just as my response is probably an overly-sensitive response to perceived passive-aggressive behavior.

That is, I've been in too many groups, business and otherwise, where the leader speaks vaguely about People who are Doing Bad Things, but neither names any names, nor adequately delineates the bad things such that you can tell whether you're doing them -- now OR in the future.

I find it kind of annoying, at the least.

Comment author: ciphergoth 21 April 2009 05:54:03AM 1 point [-]

I think we should start saying explicitly that this is an atheists-only community.

It's not that we don't want to help theists become more rational; we do. But this website isn't primarily an outreach mechanism; it's a facilitator for discussions among people who are already on board with the basics of what we're about. And those basics absolutely rule out theism and other supernatural stuff. I think we could say fairly categorically that if you don't understand why theism is ruled out, you're not ready to post here.

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 21 April 2009 12:58:36PM 7 points [-]

I would be at least as concerned about initially repulsing atheists who don't feel that they want to be part of an overly-exclusionary community, as about driving out intelligent theists.

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 21 April 2009 07:06:49AM 3 points [-]

I doubt anyone needs to be warned that their argument for religious faith would have to be exceptional indeed to earn a positive response here.

Comment author: ciphergoth 21 April 2009 07:41:21AM 5 points [-]

I'm proposing something stronger than that: it's not appropriate to post arguments for religious faith here at all. In fact, I'm proposing something stronger than that: if you don't understand why theism is ruled out, you're not ready to post here at all.

Comment author: gjm 21 April 2009 11:49:15AM 13 points [-]

it's not appropriate to post arguments for religious faith here at all.

Agreed, with reservations. (Some might be useful examples. Some might be sufficiently persuasive prima facie to be worth a look even though we'd be astonished if they turned out actually to work.)

if you don't understand why theism is ruled out, you're not ready to post here at all.

If theism were just one more thing that people can easily be wrong about, perhaps you'd be right. As it is, there's huge internal and external pressure influencing many people in the direction of theism, and some people are really good at compartmentalizing; and as a result there are lots of people who are basically good thinkers, who are basically committed to deciding things rationally, but who are still theists. I don't see any reason to believe that no one in that position could have anything to offer LW.

Once again: Would you want to keep out Robert Aumann?

Comment author: ciphergoth 21 April 2009 12:10:20PM 5 points [-]

Would you want to keep out Robert Aumann?

Um. No. Busted.

Still, we can agree that Aumann is not on board with the programme...

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 21 April 2009 02:32:41PM *  5 points [-]

I think we could say fairly categorically that if you don't understand why theism is ruled out, you're not ready to post here.

I feel like repeating myself here: just don't foster the discussion concerned directly with religion. We don't fight religion, we fight for people's sanity. Otherwise, it's like not allowing sick people to a hospital. In most cases, good hygiene within the community should be enough to keep the patients from harming each other.

Comment author: ciphergoth 21 April 2009 04:54:14PM 9 points [-]

So part of the question is whether this is a hospital or a medical conference.

Comment author: MBlume 21 April 2009 05:20:43PM 4 points [-]

Data point: I followed a link to OB from reddit, got (largely) cured, and am now doing my best to assist the doctors.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 21 April 2009 05:24:44PM *  0 points [-]

Fair enough. More specifically, the problem is in the efficiency of this criterion: yes, there is a correlation, but is a rule worth enforcing, would it hurt more than help? So, I guess the point comes down to me not considering this particular feature as salient as you do.

Comment author: thomblake 21 April 2009 05:16:23PM 0 points [-]

So in essence, you're asking whether this is:

  1. a place for experts on rationality to come and discuss / build on important developments, or

  2. a place for people who need rationality to come and get better


Comment author: ciphergoth 21 April 2009 05:25:06PM *  4 points [-]

The distinction isn't quite as simple as I'm making - we are all actively fighting our own and each other's irrationalities - but I still think there's a line that can be drawn of whether a person is fundamentally in tune with the rationalist values that this site is all about.

However, I am given pause by the fact that everyone except Annoyance seems to disagree with me.

Comment author: komponisto 21 April 2009 10:44:38PM *  7 points [-]

I agree with you in a weak sense . My position is that while we shouldn't officially exclude theists from participation, we should nevertheless be free to take atheism completely for granted -- as would be manifested, for instance, in unhesitatingly using theism as a canonical example of irrationality. The kind of theist who will be welcome here is the kind who can handle this.

Comment author: Jack 21 April 2009 10:33:00AM *  5 points [-]

I think it is a huge mistake to assume that someone who is irrational in one area isn't perfectly rational in other areas. I can easily imagine an intelligent theist writing helpful posts on nearly every subject that comes up here. The fact that he's making errors when it comes to his thinking on God is totally beside the point. Creationists I'd be considerably more skeptical of- but I don't think its impossible to imagine a good post on say keeping your brain healthy, or rhetorical tricks for convincing people coming from people with very wrong views in other areas. If a theist came here I take it you should down vote his/her bad arguments for theism and upvote any positive contributions they make. End of story.

Learning someone is a theist might be bayesian evidence that they are fools but its not strong enough evidence to prevent entry to the community even before seeing what the person has to offer.

Comment author: ciphergoth 21 April 2009 10:57:21AM 5 points [-]

I don't see what we have here as a bag of tricks you can use to improve your rationality, but a programme that forms a coherent whole, as I set out here. To be a theist is to fail to grasp the whole thrust of the programme.

Comment author: Jack 21 April 2009 11:21:48AM 0 points [-]

I'm not sure that is the case. To be a biblical literalist waiting for the rapture is certainly to have nothing in common with the programme. But there are theists who could share your concerns about the effect of our biases and who could make helpful contributions to that cause. And even though this isn't a deconversion website I think if you want to evangelize for the rationalist project having a community that is open and friendly even to those who still have some irrational beliefs left over is really important. Would you let in questioning theists? Fideists?

Comment author: ciphergoth 21 April 2009 11:39:35AM *  3 points [-]

If we're so keen on outreach, why aren't we talking about it?

EDIT: I should add that I wouldn't want to leave the impression that my typical picture of a theist is some thundering fundamentalist; I have several pagan and liberal Christian friends, and they are smart and lovely people. Still, the Escher-brained things they say when you try and talk about the subject discourage me from the idea that they're going to help us move things forward.

Comment author: cousin_it 21 April 2009 01:26:58PM *  8 points [-]

Superhappies would ask you, in the name of fairness, to invent a symmetric rite of admission for atheists. Some Bayesian-obvious truth that would sound similarly unacceptable to their social circle.

For example, we atheists could get a taste of theists' feelings by declaring aloud that "women/blacks and men/whites don't have equal intelligence on average" and watching the reactions. A "bigoted" version of Dawkins or Eliezer could arise and argue eloquently how this factual statement is irrelevant to morality, just like the issue of god's existence. That was inflammatory on purpose; you could go for something milder, like the goodness of monarchy relative to democracy.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 21 April 2009 03:41:11PM -2 points [-]

For cooperation to arise, the opposing side needs to have relative advantage. For the theists to ask atheists to argue for theism, they should consider atheists to be better at arguing for theism than they are. Fairness is not just about symmetry, but also about cooperation. And cooperation requires improvement in the outcome for all sides.

Comment author: cousin_it 21 April 2009 04:02:41PM 3 points [-]

I wasn't asking atheists to argue for theism. And I don't understand your reply at all. Could you explain?

Comment author: Jack 21 April 2009 11:52:22AM 0 points [-]

I confess I don't understand what you mean by this. Are you wondering why more people haven't commented on that post? Why I haven't commented on that post?

Does this have something to do with our previous exchange?

Comment author: ciphergoth 21 April 2009 12:08:16PM 1 point [-]

Good questions. I guess I am venting my frustration that my lovely post has had so few comments. It feels like that there's a conversation to be had about the whole subject that we keep nibbling at the edges of in exchanges like this when we should be driving hard for the center. If my post is a poor way to start on that, someone should make a better one.

So to tie that back into our exchange, I feel like I'd be better armed to discuss who we should be encouraging to post here in the name of outreach if we'd had a discussion on what sort of outreach we might do and what role this website might play in that.

However, it's also more than possible that I have entirely the wrong end of the stick, in which case I'd appreciate guidance on where the right end might be found :-)

Comment author: Jack 21 April 2009 02:21:56PM 2 points [-]

You're right that debating factors the effect outreach would be a lot easier if we had criteria for what effective outreach means.

I think people prefer posts that go a long way toward making some argument- in contrast with those that just ask for input. Even if people like the question they're less likely to promote the post. But your comment outlining the programme got a lot of karma. Why not make that into a full post and talk about the sorts of things you'd like our goals to be.

One other possibility is that its just too soon to do outreach. Maybe we need more time to mature and systematize our ideas.

Comment author: Furcas 21 April 2009 11:02:13PM *  5 points [-]

One good reason to, if not exclude theists, then at least minimize their presence here, is the very real possibility that they could become a large minority. Once their number has reached a certain percentage of the LW community, it's almost a certainty that they will team up with agnostics and atheists who believe in belief to enforce deference towards their beliefs; by constantly chiding vocal anti-theists, or simply by making it known that they are theists once in a while, they will make it rude to state that theism is, in fact, irrational. This isn't a new phenomenon, it's one that already exists in nearly every society in the Western world, as well as most internet communities. I'd hate to see it take hold at Less Wrong too.

Comment author: ciphergoth 22 April 2009 10:50:16AM 4 points [-]

Probably this is a better idea than the one I started with - there's a distinction between an atheist community and an atheist-only community, and the former may be wiser.

Comment author: byrnema 21 April 2009 04:18:12PM *  2 points [-]

My impressions about this group has been that the tone is overall welcoming and supportive, and dissenting views and misapprehensions are met with civility and patience. This is exactly what I expect from a rationalist group, and why I like it here.

From feedback in this thread, I understand that no plurality wants me kicked off LW for stomping on flowers but, indeed, perhaps theistic views (or, in my case, theistic sympathies) are not compatible with your programme. Since there seems to be some debate left, I would like to participate and have a hand in my fate regarding inclusion here.

An explanation of how theism could possibly be consistent with being rational is begged in nearly every other comment in this thread. I would like to provide one, and I will do so in the Welcome Page, as suggested by AnnaSalamon. I'm not certain that I'm ready -- a better understanding of LW would help me prepare a more relevant and convincing argument - but the time seems right. I will paste a link here when my argument is posted.

I would like to assure that I will not persist indefinitely in this argument, it is not my intention to be factious. When and if the tide has shifted so it seems that the general view of the group is that atheism is a precondition (minimum standards, consistency, etc) then I will know that my views or not aligned well enough. Already I am of a mind that this is not the place to debate theism generally -- there are other forums for that. However, this would be the place to debate the relationship between theism and rationality, to the extent to which it is undecided and of interest.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 21 April 2009 05:34:15PM 1 point [-]

Try the Open Thread, not the welcome page.

Also this links to much of the previous discussion of those arts by which even a moderately competent rationalist would flatly rule out all present-day religions.

If a topic is consistently downvoted, it really does seem to me that one ought to take a hint that perhaps the discussion is not locally desired, for whatever reason. I try to take those hints that are represented by my own comments being downvoted or my own posts not being upvoted. Consider doing likewise.

Comment author: AnnaSalamon 21 April 2009 07:25:49PM 2 points [-]

Eliezer, why recommend open thread? The idea was that the falsity of theism is something most of LW (including open thread) would like to move on from, but that we might well want a beginner-friendly area such as the welcome thread, or the "Ideas you're not ready to post" thread, or if not those than some other thread we could create, where less background is okay. Folks who want an exclusive conversation can just stay out of that thread.

Comment author: Annoyance 22 April 2009 04:04:09PM 1 point [-]

This is an example of why I thought it would be useful to have a rationality wiki. People could simply point at the content it contained on specific issues (such as the relationship between theism and rationality) instead of having to reinvent the wheel over and over again.

Comment author: byrnema 24 April 2009 12:52:19PM -1 points [-]

Requesting permission to post top-level in response to The Uniquely Awful Example of Theism. It's not perfect, but I wrote it carefully.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 24 April 2009 06:46:34PM 0 points [-]

Byrnema... I really think that you should take the hint.

Comment author: thomblake 24 April 2009 05:27:58PM 1 point [-]

You have enough karma - go for it!

Comment author: infotropism 21 April 2009 05:24:14PM 0 points [-]

If I were in your shoes, I'd be fairly scared of posting about this again if I'd expect to be shot down. But please don't be afraid. I think such a post would really be interesting.

If it is shot down, that's a fact about the ideas, or maybe how they were laid down, not about you, after all. In that case, it's up to the people who disagree, to explain how they think you're wrong, or why they disagree.

If you hold the ideas you're exposing, as dear, or part of your identity, it may even hurt a bit more than simply being rebuked, but even then, really, I think it'll only help the community, and you, to move forward, to add them on the mat, and see where it leads.

Comment author: CronoDAS 21 April 2009 06:08:39AM 0 points [-]

You're doing fine.

Comment author: thomblake 21 April 2009 12:56:37PM 0 points [-]

It strikes me as a purely theoretical point - an admonition that we're not downvoting enough.

But who knows - someone who EY has repeatedly called a 'troll' has been pretty consistently on the 'top contributors' list since near when we started here.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 21 April 2009 01:11:15PM *  2 points [-]

Note that he's been consistently losing Karma ever since the automatic self-upvote was turned off.

Comment author: thomblake 21 April 2009 01:33:52PM 0 points [-]

I doubt that's the whole story - he doesn't post nearly as frequently as a lot of folks around here, and if you look at his recent comment history, a lot of his comments are at about -5 or so that (as far as I can tell) would be at about a 0 if they were posted by anyone else. Seems like he's getting unusually and inappropriately slammed with downvotes lately.

Comment author: Annoyance 21 April 2009 02:16:04PM 4 points [-]

Look at it this way: it is folly to evaluate the known in terms of the unknown, while it's necessary to evaluate the unknown in terms of the known.

It's much, much easier to decide the value of a comment or comment history than to judge the value of how people vote for it. How many people read a comment, but don't vote? How many positive and negative votes are there? What do we know about how insightful and wise the voting community is as a whole, and how do we determine how well the voters manifest those qualities in individual cases?

The quality of the comments is clearer - more known - than the quality of the votes. It follows that the karma system doesn't provide us with a way to judge the comments, but a way to judge the community. Not a great way by any means, admittedly, but a method.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 21 April 2009 03:34:14PM 0 points [-]

That may be right. People don't just vote for comments, but also for the person. In time, the impression sunk in, which modified the baseline of voting decisions.

Comment author: jimrandomh 21 April 2009 04:41:39AM 0 points [-]

mormon1 and psycho (probably the same person with multiple accounts) tried to troll, but were/was quickly deleted.