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.

chaosmosis comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 16, chapter 85 - Less Wrong Discussion

9 Post author: FAWS 18 April 2012 02:30AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (1106)

Comments (1106)

Sort By: Best

Show:

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

Comment author: chaosmosis 18 April 2012 03:59:42PM * -1 points [-]

I'm done protecting the theory. I don't have the time to argue with this many different people.

If I haven't convinced you yet then it's either impossible because I'm wrong or impossible because you don't want to understand or you're lying. I don't much care either way, because I don't believe that any reasonable observer would conclude that the remaining objections to what I've been saying are actually important. I believe that I've done enough to convince someone who is actually interested in knowing what happened, and that I can never convince anyone if the amount of work I've done so far isn't enough.

Comment author: thomblake 18 April 2012 04:03:42PM 3 points [-]

If you have future interactions on this site, please try to avoid "convincing" as a primary goal. This is not debate club.

Comment author: chaosmosis comment score below threshold [+] (15 children)

Comment author: thomblake 18 April 2012 04:41:50PM * 3 points [-]

Note:

The process of true Bayesians coming to agreement bears precious little resemblance to a typical human argument.

;

You've been willfully ignorant and willfully misinterpreted me

You have a bad model of me.

Either you are being irrational or Aumann is wrong

Aumann's Agreement Theorem only applies to perfectly rational agents in particular idealized circumstances, as much as it's used colloquially hereabouts as though it says anything about humans.

And yes, I'm being massively irrational. I am a human. You are also being massively irrational. If you have figured out how to stop doing that, then please let us know.

your above fallacies

I did not see any fallacies. Given that I am an expert on logic, I expect that you're just using the word wrong.

your disdain for debate and your rejection of "convincing" because it's apparently associated with debate is incredibly stupid.

I'm still unsure what you mean by "stupid" on the object level.

For humans, being in debate-mode tends to be a bad idea with respect to truth-seeking. Once you start arguing for a position, it is very difficult to update your beliefs on new evidence.

If you have evidence, state your evidence, update on the evidence presented by others, and everybody wins. Entering into debate-mode or being rude is a great way to discourage rationality in both yourself and any respondents.

Comment author: Random832 18 April 2012 07:38:22PM 0 points [-]

"If you have evidence, state your evidence, update on the evidence presented by others, and everybody wins."

The people who downvote the evidence win more.

In the spoiler problem from a while ago, someone else linked to an example conversation purporting to demonstrate why the policy was a good idea. I demonstrated that it was impossible, once the user had asked his question, for the conversation to have ended without causing the alleged harm done by revealing the spoiler. Someone responded by telling me that it's not up for discussion and no-one except Eliezer is allowed to have an opinion on whether it is a good or effective policy.

Comment author: pedanterrific 18 April 2012 08:23:05PM 0 points [-]

Someone responded by telling me that it's not up for discussion and no-one except Eliezer is allowed to have an opinion on whether it is a good or effective policy.

To clarify, I don't think this, and you are of course allowed to have an opinion (as long as you've filled out the proper paperwork). I just meant that he has veto power. (Also, I was rather frustrated with the conversation at that point. Sorry.)

Comment author: thomblake 18 April 2012 08:02:52PM 0 points [-]

Someone responded by telling me that it's not up for discussion and no-one except Eliezer is allowed to have an opinion on whether it is a good or effective policy.

I don't believe you.

Comment author: pedanterrific 18 April 2012 08:12:58PM 1 point [-]

I dispute the accuracy of that summary, but I suppose it's possible Random832 got that impression from the conversation starting here.

Comment author: thomblake 18 April 2012 08:16:31PM 0 points [-]

Ah, I could see someone making that interpretation.

Comment author: thomblake 18 April 2012 08:01:47PM * 0 points [-]

To quote, add a single greater-than sign (>) before the quote.

Comment author: chaosmosis 18 April 2012 04:56:58PM -2 points [-]

You are clearly already in debate mode and you have been for quite a while.

Stop.

Comment author: SkyDK 19 April 2012 12:56:46PM 2 points [-]

I'm confused. I'm curious.

Can you see his point of view?

Do you understand why people (me included) feel that you under-clarify your arguments?

Do you realise that we (me, and I guess thornblake as well) do not mean you any harm? That harming you could not possibly help us (sorry, it could, marginally so, if it actually had a behavioural impact)?

Furthermore, it is hard to get social benefits from downvoting, since others can't see anyone downvote you. This does NOT have the same social effect as denouncing something in public.

Comment author: thomblake 18 April 2012 04:42:40PM 2 points [-]

Please stop being stupid.

Please stop being rude.

Note: we have community norms against exactly one of these.

Comment author: TimS 18 April 2012 04:57:54PM 2 points [-]

Only one?

Comment author: thomblake 18 April 2012 05:02:59PM 3 points [-]

I've seen plenty of upvoted comments along the lines of "I'm not very smart (score below 100 on IQ tests) but want to understand this point - can someone explain it more simply?". Stupidity is not punished, though it's possible that many of its effects are.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 18 April 2012 08:35:44PM 1 point [-]

Good point. I was equivocating technical stupid (scores low on IQ test) with colloquial/slangy stupid (not putting a lot of mental effort into comments, irrational, and/ or obtuse).

chaosmosis comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 16, chapter 85 - Less Wrong Discussion

Article Navigation

Comments (1106)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Open Threads

Recent Rationality Diaries

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (1106)

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