GLaDOS comments on [Link] Noam Chomsky Killed Aaron Schwartz - Less Wrong

-6 Post author: Athrelon 16 January 2013 04:31PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (116)

Comments (116)

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

Comment author: GLaDOS 16 January 2013 06:33:06PM *  4 points [-]

While it's as hard as ever to make sense of Moldbug's stream of consciousness, it seems like he is stuck in a circular redefinition of "underdog". The regular definition involves comparing priors, while his is comparing posteriors:

While I disagree with quite strongly with some of his content and think he is over-hyped compared to other Dark Enlightenment authors, this seems an uncharitable reading. I'm somewhat familiar with his style and think you are wrong on your interpretation.

Comment author: shminux 16 January 2013 07:19:53PM 4 points [-]

How do you charitably interpret the quote

Well, we have a pretty good test for who was stronger. Who won? In the real story, overdogs win.

Seems like a redefinition of standard terms, pure and simple.

Comment author: [deleted] 16 January 2013 11:08:31PM *  3 points [-]

Ehm... No. Its a statement of a general rule.

"A pretty good test" =/= "New Definition"

Edit: Just wondering why people down voted this comment?

Comment author: shminux 16 January 2013 11:57:20PM *  4 points [-]

Oh, I think I misunderstood the quote. I took it to mean "underdogs are defined as those who lose", not "underdogs tend to lose much more often than popularly assumed". So what he means is that those who believe in underdogs are poorly calibrated and therefore unwise. Is this the intended reading?

Comment author: [deleted] 17 January 2013 12:00:45AM 2 points [-]

So what he means that those who believe in underdogs are poorly calibrated and therefore unwise. Is this the intended reading?

This was my reading and I think GLaDOS and Ahtrelon's, I'm not completely sure it was the intended reading since several people took it to your way, but I'm quite confident it was considering his other material.

Comment author: FiftyTwo 16 January 2013 08:50:09PM 0 points [-]

he is over-hyped compared to other Dark Enlightenment authors,

Who would you say is 'better'?

Comment author: GLaDOS 16 January 2013 11:19:33PM *  3 points [-]

I like HBDish authors a lot so my list will be biased to those blog. Gregory Cochran & Henry Harpending, hbd* chick (~_^) and Derbyshire are cool. Foseti is a must for Reactionaries. Over in the interesting but scary corner we have Federico who seems to have managed among other things to steel man the straw Vulcan (see his now probably deleted Emotion is The Mindkiller post) and Nick Land is the best transhumanist academic continental philosopher I've read in years, which is really low praise but his Reactionary writing is very much knurd.

Enjoy your corruption to the Dark Side! (^_^)

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit