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

TraderJoe comments on Adopting others' opinions - Less Wrong

1 [deleted] 30 April 2012 12:30PM

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

Comments (30)

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

Comment author: TraderJoe 30 April 2012 03:08:00PM *  1 point [-]

[comment deleted]

Comment author: ParagonProtege 30 April 2012 05:47:43PM *  6 points [-]

Regarding "political boffoonery," I think Grognor was referencing your comments about intelligence (allegedly) correlating with political views. The comments about the holocaust and World War II might also fall into the same category.

On LessWrong, we have a social norm to not discuss politics. We also have a social norm against using political examples where other non-political examples could be used. If a political example is absolutely necessary, we try to use a historical example that most people won't have an emotional, gut reaction to. The reasons for why are discussed in Politics is the Mind Killer.

Comment author: TraderJoe 01 May 2012 06:57:47AM *  2 points [-]

[comment deleted]

Comment author: ahartell 30 April 2012 10:38:53PM 0 points [-]

gentleman's agreement

Well...

Comment author: ParagonProtege 30 April 2012 11:56:18PM *  -1 points [-]

I'm unsure of your meaning. Could you explain/elaborate, please?

Edit: JoshuaZ clarified what my mistake was. Unless you were thinking of something else?

Comment author: JoshuaZ 01 May 2012 12:11:24AM 1 point [-]

A gentleman's agreement is generally used to mean an unspoken agreement. In this context the agreement isn't unspoken.

Comment author: ParagonProtege 01 May 2012 12:16:10AM 1 point [-]

Oh! I wasn't aware that gentleman's agreements are usually unspoken. I drew the phrase from the LW "About" page. Thank you for the clarification. I'll edit my comment.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 01 May 2012 03:57:06AM 0 points [-]

Hmm, that page should probably be corrected then, since using the phrase that way is at best mildly non-standard.

Comment author: CuSithBell 01 May 2012 04:28:59AM 5 points [-]

I understood it to mean an informal agreement, not an unspoken one. Googling turns up investopedia, wikipedia, and several dictionary entries, which seem to indicate that "informal" is the more common meaning.

Comment author: juliawise 03 May 2012 01:00:52PM 1 point [-]

I thought so, too. The "gentleman" part refers to trusting that everyone will adhere to the agreement rather than relying on outside enforcement. I.e. it's not a legally binding contract, but a social one.

On a side note, the phrase pushes my gender buttons and I would be happy to see some other wording used on the "about" page.

Comment author: CuSithBell 04 May 2012 03:28:46PM 0 points [-]

Under normal conditions (amongst friends) I'd interpret the phrase as part of a deliberate stylistic choice including an overt consciousness of gender issues etc., but I agree it's probably not ideal on LW. Perhaps some moderator would consider changing it (to, e.g., "informal agreement", or something more poetic along those lines)?

Comment author: ahartell 01 May 2012 12:45:24AM *  0 points [-]

Sorry about being unclear; I meant what JoshuaZ said. The "no politics" thing just seems too formal to me to be a "gentleman's agreement".