= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Viliam comments on Effects of Castration on the Life Expectancy of Contemporary Men - 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 (48)
Thanks; this comment made me happy. Part of the answer is that I generally have low self-esteem, which negatively affects my perception of the quality of certain things that I have written. Another part of the answer was that I wrote this with the very specific goal of estimating values of the "years of life added vs. age at castration" curve at different points in mind, which seems much more narrow than the goal of doing basic science work, which is most of what journals publish.
Additionally, many journals have publication fees, which I would have to pay out of pocket. Others charge readers access fees; I'd rather people be able to access my work freely. As things currently stand, I might still be able to mention this work during interviews as an example of a time when I noticed others didn't seem to be working on a certain problem and took action myself, if the interviewer didn't seem to be prejudiced against transhumanist or LGBT folks.
A short summary of what is wrong with science, as done today. :(
Possible solution: Create an "amateur science foundation" which would review articles for free, and if they are good, would publish them in open-access journals. (To prevent flooding by crackpots, if a person submits an obviously stupid article, they get a warning, and after three warnings they are blacklisted.)
Alternatively, the site could let the users determine what it good. Users could "like" or "dislike" articles, and these likes and dislikes would affect the reputation of the publisher. The higher the publisher's reputation, the more likes, and the fewer dislikes and article has, the higher rank the article would get when being searched for, and articles with sufficiently low rankings would be hidden. Think Stack Exchange for science.
It could be expanded in many ways, for example by weighing likes and dislikes by high-status users more heavily than low-status ones, or by using numeric ratings instead.