= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Grognor comments on I Stand by the Sequences - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (248)
I was waiting for someone to make this accusation. The only thing missing is the part where I only agree with Yudkowsky because he's high status and I wish to affiliate with him!
I know that I have observed and corrected a pattern like that in my thinking in the past. Studying biases is useless if you don't adjust your own thinking at times you identify a bias that may be affecting it.
I think your prior for the comment you describe being true should be very high, and I'd like to know what additional evidence you had that brought that probability down. You've mentioned in the past that the high status tone of the sequences caught your attention and appealed to you. Isn't it possible that you are flawed? I know I am.
Actually, I think what Jack said (that this post is signaling, but nothing else about his comment) is true, and my reply is also quite possibly true. But I don't know how I should act differently in accordance with the possibility. It's a case of epistemic luck if it is true. (As an aside, I think this is Alicorn's best article on this website by leaps and bounds; I recommend it, &c.)
What?
What accusation? I'm just describing your post and asking questions about it.
Edit: I mean, obviously I have a point of view. But it's not like it was much of a stretch to say what I did. I just paraphrased. How is my characterization of your post flawed?