= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
fubarobfusco comments on Problems in Education - 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 (318)
I don't see this level of scrutiny being applied to most posts here.
While I read this post, and before I got to the grandparent comment, my reaction was "Wow, this is enough of a surprise to my current model (and most of the evidence is the personal statement of an unverified person on the Internet) that my probability of it being a fabrication is significant". I don't usually get that from a LW post.
Furthermore, the effect of promoting a fabrication is way worse for accusations of major malfeasance and racism than for most minor personal anecdotes.
(This is not saying that I think the post is probably a fabrication! I give it about a 2/3 probability of being true.)
I don't either, but that isn't a compelling argument against applying that level of scrutiny.
We don't generally (for instance) discredit posters for pseudonymity. Doing so for a particular post, but not others, invites the question — Why this one?
Most posts make arguments that readers can assess using public sources: if the argument and citations are good, they can stand separately from the poster. This post is personal testimony.
Good point — it's not that the poster is pseudonymous, but that they don't offer much to distinguish a factual post from a hoax.