Zaine comments on Open Thread, February 1-14, 2013 - Less Wrong

6 Post author: OpenThreadGuy 01 February 2013 08:26AM

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

Comments (282)

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

Comment author: Zaine 01 February 2013 09:30:20PM *  5 points [-]

This is really concerning to me. Also, what is the rationale behind obfuscating basilisks? From what I understand, it could lead to thoughts of, "There's no point to all this after all," but there exists many other avenues to arrive at that same thought; why attempt to bury LW's avenue? It signals quite disturbingly, "We do not wish to risk disillusionment of our followers." Would those particularly vulnerable to such thoughts not benefit from being taught how to build mental fortitude without sacrificing open-mindedness?

I don't specifically know how the above might be accomplished, but surely deleting critiques and other signals considered unsavoury will only increase the probability of a mental breakdown. What is the argument for helping each other tackle basilisks in a safe environment? Hiding the cause does not deal with the underlying susceptibility. I understand deletion of annoying noise, but how can anything reasoned that does not utilise Dark Arts be considered noise when presenting a sound argument?

A separate point:
Harry advocates for scientific secrecy in HP:MoR, as an analogue to how powerful wizards keep their most powerful tricks secret. However, the latter is widely known to be an agreed cultural convention of the magical world, as is the rationale for doing so understood. Hiding active secrecy without sharing a reason for same only inspires revulsion to that secrecy. The analogue is intriguing and not without merit, but only insofar as it stays an analogue and not a permutation.


Edit: Perhaps I should clarify that I truly am asking questions - they are not rhetorical by any means. If I am wrong, please tell me how; that is the point of the site, yes?

Comment author: Mitchell_Porter 02 February 2013 10:22:57PM 4 points [-]

what is the rationale behind obfuscating basilisks?

To use a metaphor... The original basilisk was suppressed, not just because some people were frightened by the idea of making deals with demons, but because the site admins thought that the methods proposed might lead to people really getting entangled with real demons; and they will hang on to that belief until someone demonstrates, using the logic of a demonological theory that they accept, that the methods don't work.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 February 2013 11:24:14AM 1 point [-]

Harry advocates for scientific secrecy in HP:MoR [...]

Not to mention the fact that his example (Szilard keeping the effectiveness of graphite as a neutron moderator secret) dates back to before the Internet, and hence before the Streisand effect was much of an issue.

Comment author: Rukifellth 04 February 2013 05:33:15PM -1 points [-]

I made a similar post a few days ago, thinking that at any point in Lesswrong there's at least a few people that think they have basilisks and are just too hesitant to tell others about them. No one came forward, so I guess they aren't as common as I thought. I didn't think of calling them basilisks until they were referred to as such in the comments.