Lumifer comments on Marketing Rationality - Less Wrong

28 Post author: Viliam 18 November 2015 01:43PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (220)

CC Licenced

Comments (220)

Sort By: Best

Show:

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

Comment author: Lumifer 24 November 2015 10:01:29PM 1 point [-]

Sorry, I don't enjoy gambling. I am still curious about "quality" which you say your article has and the typical Lifehacker swill doesn't. How do you define that "quality"?

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky comment score below threshold [+] (8 children)

Comment author: Lumifer 25 November 2015 03:19:12AM 1 point [-]

I am sorry to disappoint you. I do not.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky comment score below threshold [+] (6 children)

Comment author: Lumifer 25 November 2015 03:23:48AM * 1 point [-]

As I said, I'm not interested in gambling. Your bet, from my point of view, is on whether a random selection of people will find one piece of shit to be slightly better or slightly worse than another piece of shit. I am not particularly interested in shades of brown, this establishes no objective facts, and will not change my position. So why bother?

Four out of five dentists recommend... X-)

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky comment score below threshold [+] (4 children)

Comment author: Lumifer 25 November 2015 03:37:59AM * 1 point [-]

Now, how do you cross the inference gap from people who like the darkest shade into lighter shades?

I am not interested in crossing the inference gap to people who like the darkest shade. They can have it.

That's the project of raising the sanity waterline.

I don't think that raising the sanity waterline involves producting shit, even of particular colours.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 25 November 2015 04:01:51AM -2 points [-]

You seem to have made two contradicting statements, or maybe we're miscommunicating.

1) Do you believe that raising the sanity waterline of those in the murk - those who like the dark shade because of their current circumstances and knowledge, but are capable of learning and improving - is still raising the sanity waterline?

2) If you believe it is still raising the sanity waterline, how do you raise their sanity waterline if you do not produce slightly less shitty content intentionally in order to cross the inference gap?

Comment author: Lumifer 25 November 2015 04:10:45AM 1 point [-]

Do you believe that raising the sanity waterline of those in the murk

I don't think you can raise their sanity waterline by writing slightly lighter-shade articles on Lifehacker and such. I think you're deluding yourself.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 25 November 2015 04:13:26AM -1 points [-]

Ok, I will agree to disagree on this one.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 24 November 2015 10:30:54PM -1 points [-]

As an example this article, as do others, cites links to and describes studies, gives advice that is informed by research, and conveys frames of thinking likely to lead to positive outcomes besides building willpower, such as self-forgiveness, commitment, goal setting, etc.

Lumifer comments on Marketing Rationality - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (220)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (220)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login