= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gjm comments on LessWrong Help Desk - free paper downloads and more (2014) - 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 (279)
What? (And: Why have you posted it here?)
[EDITED to add:] Also, why have you apparently twice asked a question and then, after it was answered, deleted your question and replaced its text with something like "this was an unhelpful comment, so I replaced it with this"? How could your original comments possibly have been less helpful than that? At least they presumably provided some context for the answers you got.
I'm curious about whether sex sells, empirically. I think it's relevant because if it does, it presents a memetic hazard and a hazard to our evolutionary heuristics.
I have started using a new disclaimer: Replies to the comment you are now reading accurately describe my ideas so the original post has been replaced by this disclaimer to spare your time :) because sometimes my comments become redundant when a commentator rephrases or restates all points of interest.
But why would you investigate that by comparing promotion using attractive models (note: the fact that "model" has two quite different meanings is one reason why it would have been helpful had your original question been a bit more discursive) with random means of promotion? What you actually want to know is surely something more like: If you take some means of promoting a thing, and then make the minimum possible change to it that adds or removes a substantial amount of sexiness, what happens to its effectiveness?
This is not sufficient reason for deleting them, any more than the fact that an employee has been made redundant is sufficient reason for killing him.
By all means edit your comment to add a disclaimer -- put it at the start if you like, to save readers' time -- but please do not delete the original text. If nothing else, it provides necessary context for understanding the responses.
Thank you for this.
Ahh I totally see what you're saying now. I could have interpreted what you said in a more nuanced way if I was more on the ball (or perhaps this is just hindsight bias. But without hindsight bias, can one be gratefu, and if one can't be grateful, can they be happy?
What answer other than "Hell, yes!" is possible?