Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Lumifer comments on Be secretly wrong - Less Wrong

32 Post author: Benquo 10 December 2016 07:06AM

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

Comments (47)

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

Comment author: Lumifer 12 December 2016 07:17:37PM *  0 points [-]

and now Lumifer will immediately reply with something predictably useless, and that will kill the whole debate

Why would it kill the debate? My shadow isn't that large and that dense that nothing will grow in it. I'll repeat what I said before: I'm ignorable. If you think my comment is useless, just skip past it.

Or do you think that there's something poisonous/infectious in my comments so that they create a zone of creep around them?

you are defecting at some kind of Prisonner's Dilemma we have here

What kind of a Prisoner's Dilemma do we have here? I've noticed that expression tends to be heavily overused to mean THOU SHALL ALWAYS COOPERATE OTHERWISE YOU ARE BAD and I'm not a very cooperative creature. Is there a Prisoner's Dilemma, technically speaking?

a bit too aggressive

Fails a reality check, too :-P

obviously, so you can't be attacked back in the same style

You are making the assumption that I'm mostly interested in collecting Internet Debate Points. That is not the case -- if I were, I wouldn't hang around at LW which isn't a terribly convenient place for such activities. And anyway, a bit upthread I'm being chided for "[t]he strategy of making confident though erroneous claims in order to get others to explain things to you". So what is it, am I making too few claims or too many?

So other people are providing value, and you are giving them some negative reinforcement in return.

That's a general-purpose argument against any criticism, isn't it?

LW's problem isn't only that good posts became scarce, it is also that nature abhors vacuum and so shit started to flow in to fill that empty space. If you want any content, that's easy, but you'd better set up some filters before the place gets filled with "Video using humor to spread rationality" and "This one equation may be the root of intelligence".

Comment author: Viliam 14 December 2016 11:11:15AM *  2 points [-]

Is this supposed to be yet another "confident though erroneous claim in order to get others to explain things to you"?

You see, I am unable to say when you are playing games and when you are not. I just have a rule of thumb of avoiding debates with people whom I suspect of playing games. I simply don't enjoy this kind of games.

The problem here is my lack of trust that you are debating in good faith (as opposed to trolling for reaction). Maybe I completely misjugde you. Maybe you are doing something that contributes to such misjudgement.

Comment author: Lumifer 14 December 2016 03:28:52PM *  0 points [-]

I am unable to say when you are playing games and when you are not

I don't see this as a problem :-) Moreover, I think that "playing games or not" is not a binary choice, but rather a position on a continuous scale -- I like conversations that operate on multiple levels simultaneously with a certain level of ambiguity.

I just have a rule of thumb of avoiding debates with people whom I suspect of playing games

Sure. I'm not jumping around yelling "Debate me! Debate me!". If you don't want to, well, just don't. Like I'm free to comment on your public postings, you are free to entirely ignore my comments.

my lack of trust

What do you have at stake so that you need a lot of trust?

Comment author: Jiro 24 December 2016 10:26:36PM 1 point [-]

I think that "playing games or not" is not a binary choice, but rather a position on a continuous scale -- I like conversations that operate on multiple levels simultaneously with a certain level of ambiguity.

Partially playing games is basically just playing games, for the same reason that a barrel that is half full of wine and half full of sewage is basically full of sewage.

Comment author: Lumifer 25 December 2016 02:59:01AM 2 points [-]

So you can't imagine someone being other than (a) completely, 100% dead serious; or (2) obviously joking and not trying to communicate anything but ha-ha funny? No intermediate stages at all?

Comment author: Jiro 25 December 2016 08:55:59PM 3 points [-]

If someone is half serious and half joking, and it isn't very obvious which parts are jokes and which are not, that leaves him in a position where he can act as though something is serious up until he gets called on it, at which point he can switch to saying "of course that was bad logic/bad sources/ad hominem/etc., it was just a joke?" So you're better off acting as though it's jokes all the time.