JRMayne comments on Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Argument - Less Wrong

74 Post author: palladias 18 February 2013 05:05PM

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

Comments (95)

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

Comment author: shminux 18 February 2013 05:59:41PM *  27 points [-]

Documenting my mental processes after reading this post (disclaimer: human introspection sucks, and mine is probably no exception):

  1. Huh, this is one of the better versions of the Devil's advocate game I've ever encountered... Immediate upvote.

  2. Huh, the poster analyzed their mistakes, learned from them and improved the challenge. Too bad I only have one upvote.

  3. Clicking on the links... WTF, this is the girl who converted to Christianity (Catholicism? Really? Out of all the options available?) from Atheism a year or so ago... Anything she posts deserves a downvote...

  4. Stop! What the hell am I doing? This is, like, falling prey to several biases at once. At least I should notice that I am confused. Unable to reconcile the "obviously dumb" conversion move with this quite clever post.

  5. Wait, this is the substance of her post, to begin with!

  6. Deciding to definitely keep the upvote and reserve judgment until after looking through the linked posts.

Comment author: JRMayne 18 February 2013 08:49:31PM 10 points [-]

Ha!

I think the post is excellent, and I appreciated shminux's sharing his mental walkthrough.

On that same front, I find the Never-Trust-A-[Fill-in-the-blank] idea just bad. The fact that someone's wrong on something significant does not mean they are wrong on everything. This goes the other way; field experts often believe they have similar expertise on everything, and they don't.

One quibble with the OP: I don't think a computer can pass a Turing Test, and I don't think it's close. The main issues with some past tests are that some of the humans don't try hard to be human; there should be a reward for a human who gets called a human in those tests.

Finally, I no longer understand the divide between Discuss and Main. If this isn't Main-worthy, I don't get it. If we're making Main something different... what is it?

Comment author: ESRogs 19 February 2013 05:18:49AM 5 points [-]

The difference between Discussion and Main is that Main is hard to find.

If it's in Main and not Recently Promoted, I don't know how you're supposed to ever see it -- is everybody else using RSS feeds or something?

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 19 February 2013 10:03:04AM 4 points [-]

I look at the sidebar on the right or visit http://lesswrong.com/r/all/recentposts/

Comment author: palladias 19 February 2013 05:58:00AM 0 points [-]

Yeah, I use an RSS for Main.

Comment author: palladias 18 February 2013 10:17:18PM 5 points [-]

There is a reward for Most Human Human (and a book by that same title I cite from in the longer talk I gave linked at the top). The computers can pass sometimes, and the author makes basically the same argument as you do -- the humans aren't trying hard enough to steer the conversation to hard topics.

Comment author: [deleted] 18 February 2013 08:52:40PM 4 points [-]

The fact that someone's wrong on something significant does not mean they are wrong on everything. This goes the other way; field experts often believe they have similar expertise on everything, and they don't.

It remains evidence, however; to ignore such is the fallacy of gray.

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 18 February 2013 10:51:44PM 5 points [-]

Yes, but it's almost certainly evidence that people on LW overweight relative to other evidence because atheism is an excessively salient feature of the local memeplex.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 19 February 2013 03:01:35AM 4 points [-]

Interesting, I was under the impression that most people around here were fairly good about not doing this. However, it's possible I haven't been paying attention recently.