If I think anti-feedback rules are harmful (and I do), I am downvoting this post no matter what (and I did).
Unfortunately, just the presence of the rule or even implication that this is a rule is sufficient to counteract a lot of such feedback. It's not enough for some people to ignore the anti-feedback convention and vote anyway, it might be necessary to take the anti-feedback convention down explicitly as well, to indicate clearly that it doesn't apply to the post.
(Notice how the post managed to stay at exactly 0 Karma this whole time, with only temporary fluctuations.)
Edit: It seems that I was wrong, after several hours the post started going into the negative, and is currently at -10, despite no official change of rules; dissenting feedback was strong enough. This thread might have played a role.
Right, I agree with that and I suppose I should have stated more explicitly that I don't want anti-feedback on the post to be the rule, not just that I intend to act as though there is no such rule.
This is my first attempt at starting a casual conversation on LW where people don't have to worry about winning or losing points, and can just relax and have social fun together.
So, Big Bang Theory. That series got me wondering. It seems to be about "geeks", and not the basement-dwelling variety either; they're highly successful and accomplished professionals, each in their own field. One of them has been an astronaut, even. And yet, everything they ever accomplish amounts to absolutely nothing in terms of social recognition or even in terms of personal happiness. And the thing is, it doesn't even get better for their "normal" counterparts, who are just as miserable and petty.
Consider, then; how would being rationalists would affect the characters on this show? The writing of the show relies a lot on laughing at people rather than with them; would rationalist characters subvert that? And how would that rationalist outlook express itself given their personalities? (After all, notice how amazingly different from each other Yudkowsky, Hanson, and Alicorn are, just to name a few; they emphasize rather different things, and take different approaches to both truth-testing and problem-solving).
Note: this discussion does not need to be about rationalism. It can be a casual, normal discussion about the series. Relax and enjoy yourselves.
But the reason I brought up that series is that its characters are excellent examples of high intelligence hampered by immense irrationality. The apex of this is represented by Dr. Sheldon Cooper, who is, essentially, a complete fundamentalist over every single thing in his life; he applies this attitude to everything, right down to people's favorite flavor of pudding: Raj is "axiomatically wrong" to prefer tapioca, because the best pudding is chocolate. Period. This attitude makes him a far, far worse scientist than he thinks, as he refuses to even consider any criticism of his methods or results.