You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Logos01 comments on [Infographic] A reminder as to how far the rationality waterline can climb (at least, for the US). - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: Logos01 22 November 2011 12:44PM

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: Logos01 24 November 2011 07:26:20AM *  -2 points [-]

Your first paragraph here seems completely unnecessary.

I disagree. Strongly. LW-ers in general need to recall that a linguistically phrased statement is not "more wrong" by nature than a mathematically phrased one -- especially when the topic itself does not lend itself to such a thing. (Though not a direct correlation this maps well to the notions of Fake Utility Functions.)

Made up numbers are worse than 'vague' -- they are counter-productive: they "prime" the reader (and the writer) towards specific subsets of the available space.

If you just used the wrong word before, that seems understandable,

It wasn't the wrong word at all. It was exactly the right word. All I did was flush it out further. That would be why I re-used the same exact term: "you will be unable to fully mature to the limits of what humans can achieve in terms of cultivated rationality.".

but you shouldn't get snippy when people can't read your mind.

... Is it really so hard to not follow such a simple request? "Please spare us references to inferential gaps"

This wasn't a question of mind reading but rather of not being profoundly ignorant as to the topic upon which truth/false judgments were being exercised. I explained this in depth and expressed my disappointment with this current state of affairs.

The paragraph beginning "Sounds false" seems so ungrammatical

... It's called the conversational tone. You use it, in writing, when you are holding a conversation.

that I can't tell what it means other than 'Science good.'

I have no reaction to this other than contempt. If I had meant to say "science good" I would have said it. I was quoting the guy I was responding to. Just why, pray tell, is this such a difficult concept to grasp? (I will point out that my emotional reactions here indicate to me that you had no serious intention of conveying anything with this statement other than to take a petty swing at someone whose tone you disliked because it was mean, and "mean is bad". This site would do a great deal better if people would grow out of White Knighting.)

Comment author: lessdazed 24 November 2011 08:09:12AM 1 point [-]

All I did was flush it out further.

flesh it out