= 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)
Oho! But it is not. You know, the nervousness associated with wanting to not be part of a cult is also a cult attractor. Once again I must point out that you are conveying only connotations, not denotations.
No slogans!
I tried this for a few weeks; it didn't change anything.
That sounds wrong to me.
I'm more motivated by making Less Wrong a good place to discuss ideas than any kind of nervousness.
Meta-ideas are ideas too, for example:
An idea: "Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics is correct, because it's mathematically correct and simplest according to Occam's Razor (if Occam's Razor means selecting the interpretation with greatest Solomonoff Prior)." -- agree or disagree.
A meta-idea: "Here is this smart guy called Eliezer. He wrote a series of articles about Occam's razor, Solomonoff prior, and quantum physics; those articles are relatively easy to read for a layman, and they also explain frequently made mistakes when discussing these topic. Reading those articles before you start discussing your opinions (with high probability repeating the frequently made mistakes explained in those articles) is a good idea to make the conversation efficient." -- agree or disagree.
This topic is about the meta-idea.
Yes, but that was not what Grognor wrote... He professed a bunch of beliefs and complained that he felt in the minority for having them.
He even explicitly discouraged discussing individual beliefs:
In other words, he prefers to discuss high-level concerns like whether you are with him or against him over low-level nuts-and-bolts details.
Edit: I see that Grognor has added a statement of regret at the end of his post. I'm willing to give him some of his credibility back.
I don't like your tone. Anyway, this is wrong; I suspected I was part of a silent majority. Judging by the voting patterns (every comment indicating disagreement is above 15, every comment indicating agreement is below 15 and half are even negative) and the replies themselves, I was wrong and the silence is because this actually is a minority position.
No! Just in this thread! There are all the other threads on the entire website to debate at the object-level. I am tempted to say that fifteen more times, if you do not believe it.
O frabjuous day, JMIV does not consider me to be completely ridiculous anymore. Could you be more patronizing?
Edit, in response to reply: In retrospect, a poll would have been better than what I ended up doing. But doing nothing would have been better still. At least we agree on that.
This may not indicate what you think it indicates. In particular, I (and I suspect other people) try to vote up comments that make interesting points even if we disagree with them. In this context, some upvoting may be due to the interestingness of the remarks which in some contexts is inversely correlated with agreement. I don't think that this accounts for the entire disparity, but it does likely count for some of it. This, combined with a deliberate desire to be non-cultish in voting patterns may account for much of the difference.
Hm. Perhaps you could have created an anonymous poll if you wished to measure opinions? Anonymity means people are less likely to form affiliations.
Just one thread devoted to politics is probably okay, but I would prefer zero.
See Cultish Countercultishness, unless of course you disagree with that too.