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

Multiheaded comments on Three Worlds Collide (0/8) - Less Wrong

48 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 30 January 2009 12:07PM

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

Comments (96)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Multiheaded 04 July 2011 10:52:22AM -1 points [-]

Oh, to anyone who agrees with the decision but is still disturbed/looking for a 3rd option due2 those specific victims: THEY DIDN'T DIE AND WERE IN LITTLE DANGER, Eliezer told us an implausible lie to make us think. In fact, the ship was a flotillia and it sent a runner home for each developement, AND they didn't settle 15b people in a frontier system - because people had read previous centuries' good SF and heeded its warnings. Same goes for every scenario with simple precautions or hidden third options.

Comment author: Multiheaded 04 July 2011 02:09:35PM 0 points [-]

I'm a nervous, anxious, karma-whoring noob, that's why I retracted it after a downvote arrived within 5 minutes of posting. Would anyone please explain the downvote, so that I know why I shouldn't write statements like this one?

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 09 August 2011 06:25:45AM 6 points [-]

I wasn't the one downvoting (I didn't catch you before you retracted), but you're using numbers and characters to write words ("2" instead of "to", "15b" instead of "15 billion' --- I don't care if it's faster for you to write, it makes it harder for a hundred other people to read it), you're discussing a piece of fiction as if it was a reality that the author "lied" about, and you seem to be thinking that forum members are so emotionally frail that they need to delude themselves.

I'm downvoting this one, seems you seem to be abusing the "retract" system just to preserve your karma, not because you actually thought your previous comment ought have been retracted.

Comment author: Multiheaded 09 August 2011 07:29:42AM *  -1 points [-]

but you're using numbers and characters to write words

Sorry, I was posting that from my phone, and had to squeeze everything in the 512 character limit; didn't bother to edit it from the PC.

and you seem to be thinking that forum members are so emotionally frail that they need to delude themselves

Well, I happen to be very emotionally frail myself (although 95% of the time I repress my emotions strongly) and, seeing as some of the fine folks here also have various personality disorders, I wanted to assist them with the emotional anguish that I knew they were facing.

I'm downvoting this one, seems you seem to be abusing the "retract" system just to preserve your karma

Eh heh, absolutely right. If that's how the system works, people will whore for karma, and nothing can be done about that. I don't feel guilty in the slightest :)

Comment author: AdeleneDawner 09 August 2011 09:47:59AM 0 points [-]

but you're using numbers and characters to write words

Sorry, I was posting that from my phone, and had to squeeze everything in the 512 character limit; didn't bother to edit it from the PC.

That's not acceptable behavior here, and will generally get you downvoted no matter how good your excuse is. (Well, okay, hypothetically speaking there's probably a sufficiently good excuse. But given that you're not writing from some ridiculously oppressive country where you have to stick to a 512 character limit in order for your message to have a reasonable chance of getting out of that country undetected rather than triggering your internet connection getting cut, do it right.)

Well, I happen to be very emotionally frail myself (although 95% of the time I repress my emotions strongly) and, seeing as some of the fine folks here also have various personality disorders, I wanted to assist them with the emotional anguish that I knew they were facing.

This... may not be the right forum for you. We're generally trying to go in the opposite direction from what you just described - making ourselves strong enough to deal with difficult truths, not figuring out ways to avoid those truths to stay comfortable.

... people will whore for karma, and nothing can be done about that.

Downvoting can be done about it. In a more abstract sense, status-based punishment can be done about it, too. You're not establishing a very good reputation, that way.

Comment author: Multiheaded 10 August 2011 01:20:21PM 3 points [-]

This... may not be the right forum for you. We're generally trying to go in the opposite direction from what you just described - making ourselves strong enough to deal with difficult truths, not figuring out ways to avoid those truths to stay comfortable.

But I am trying to become stronger. I was hurt by changing my mind, and did value from it; afterwards, the hurt stopped being productive and I tried to mitigate it.

Downvoting can be done about it. In a more abstract sense, status-based punishment can be done about it, too. You're not establishing a very good reputation, that way.

I could go about it in a sneaky way, or openly; which one do you think is worse? If it looks like a game, especially one of status and prestige, people are going to play it; the system should just tax such behavior with making the occasional genuinely valuable contribution essential for "selfish" strategies.

Comment author: Cernael 09 August 2011 12:50:49AM 2 points [-]

The nature of Alderson lines, as described, means that every system is a frontier system.

Comment author: Multiheaded 09 August 2011 03:26:49AM *  1 point [-]

Ah. I skipped that bit. Thanks.