bogus comments on [LINK] Why I'm not on the Rationalist Masterlist - Less Wrong

21 Post author: Apprentice 06 January 2014 12:16AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (866)

Comments (866)

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

Comment author: bramflakes 06 January 2014 02:10:26AM *  22 points [-]

The homepage says:

Less Wrong is an online community for people who want to apply the discovery of biases like the conjunction fallacy, the affect heuristic, and scope insensitivity in order to fix their own thinking.

Less Wrong users aim to develop accurate predictive models of the world, and change their mind when they find evidence disconfirming those models, instead of being able to explain anything.

So this person acknowledges their own biases, notes that some otherwise perfectly reasonable and in their opinion "Rational" people believe in HBD, and then (as far as I can tell) doesn't make any effort to investigate whether they might actually be true?

This is what motivated cognition looks like. If someone cannot change their mind because (sorry for the bluntness but there's no other way I can describe my impression in under a paragraph) their feelings might be hurt, and they are actively working against resolving this inner conflict, then they should not be in a rationalist community.

Comment author: benkuhn 06 January 2014 02:41:49AM *  17 points [-]

Really? Do you really think everyone who comes off as irrational based on a blog post of theirs that you read shouldn't be here? (There would be nobody left for you to talk to!) Or are you annoyed at this particular person because they said mean things about a group that contains you?

"This is what motivated cognition looks like. If someone cannot take criticism of their in-group without launching an ad-hominem attack on the critic, then they should not be in a rationalist community."

That sword cuts both ways.

Comment author: bogus 06 January 2014 03:02:14AM 10 points [-]

Really? Do you really think everyone who comes off as irrational based on a blog post of theirs that you read shouldn't be here?

There's irrationality and then there's faith-based epistemic insanity. This person actually states that he cannot accept any perceived challenge to their preferred theories. Seriously, read the blogpost. He/she is as rational as the most extreme Christian fundamentalist. Do you really think such folks could ever be productive contributors to this site?

Comment author: ThrustVectoring 06 January 2014 03:07:06AM 9 points [-]

Do you really think such folks could ever be productive contributors to this site?

They can be, but it's not worth trying to seek them out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't lukeprog have pretty serious Christian beliefs at one point?

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 06 January 2014 08:15:42PM 6 points [-]

he cannot accept any perceived challenge to their preferred theories

I find your mismatched pronouns painful.

Comment author: scrafty 06 January 2014 05:14:00AM 3 points [-]

I think it makes a big difference if the preferred theory is gender/racial equality as opposed to fundamentalist Christianity, and whether the opposition to those perceived challenges result from emotional sensitivity as opposed to blind faith. At the very least, the blog post doesn't indicate that the author would be irrational about issues other than marginalization.

Comment author: Watercressed 06 January 2014 07:40:48AM 8 points [-]

Does fundamentalist Christianity indicate that the believer would be irrational about issues other than religion?

If yes, what's the difference?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit