Did you even read what I wrote earlier?
After giving it additional throught, I've remembered this wonderful piece. Consider the arguing done; I am now convinced that what I attempted to do was ill-advised, and I apologize for not having noticed I was taking the wrong path sooner. I will from now on refrain from attempting dangerous utilitarian acrobatics and will stick to more conventional morality and simpler rules-of-thumb.
I don't know how to delete an account yet, but I suppose it'd be easy enough to go and find out. So it's going to be force then? You're not going to attempt to convince me?
Because, I mean, what's to stop me from complying with the letter of what you're attempting to coerce me into doing without respecting the spirit of it, by deleting this account too, and trying the same routine again with different accounts (that you don't know of, that don't exist yet...)? Both accounts lost, Ritalin and Rational Brony, would be relatively young and poor in karma, and I don't feel especially attached to either of them. Heck, it would make things more comfortable for me; I'd actually know the password to all my new accounts. Perhaps I'd even bother to link them to emails.
Maybe I'd get caught, maybe I wouldn't; after all, you're banking on me learning something from karmic feedback, but, because you haven't bothered to argue or convince, you have no control over what lesson, precisely, I learn.
Not to mention that I'd have the possibility of using any and all accounts existing future or past to downvote you as much as possible in petty revenge. If I were especially petty, I could invest quite a lot of effort in gaining karma, going as far as compromising my principles and posting the way I'd feel would be most popular, just for the purpose of gaining the power to downvote you as much as possible, going as far as abstaining from downvoting anyone else just for the sake of concentrating it all on you.
,Now, I'm not angry or mad or anything, just a little disappointed. And I solemnly declare that I have no intention to do any of those things (though you only have my word for it). Ethical injunction, remember? At worst, I'd simply not delete either, and create a new account from scratch. Or give up on commenting on this site altogether. I'm just showing you how I can do those things, and how your rash, violent decision, could at worst backfire and at best achieve nothing (which it already kind of does, since I already said I've given up on using RB). So how about instead of acting rashly and violently, you actually tried using those nice arguing skills rationalists are alleged to have?
I'm leaving this post public rather than PM it simply as more evidence of how the karma system is rather inadequate because of the lack of communication involved in it, and how easily it can generate illusions of simple and double transparency, ill will, and adverse and unintended reactions. We'd be better off with moderators and clear predefined, agreed-upon rules, rather than have everyone follow their fancy and let the recipient take a guess. People still willing to use the karma system against this account to, I don't know, show solidarity with Robert, or disapproval of my tone, or dismissal of the problems I'm trying to point out, or whatever, are of course welcome to go ahead, for all the good (or lack thereof) it will do.[shrugs]
I don't know how to delete an account yet, but I suppose it'd be easy enough to go and find out.
Right side of the page > Preferences > Delete
So it's going to be force then? You're not going to attempt to convince me?
The preponderance of the evidence suggests you're a troll, and as such I won't engage in discussion with you. If you delete your sockpuppet, however, this would be substantial evidence against that, and I would reconsider. I downvoted your sockpuppet to a score well below zero, because that will remove any downvoting power it has. ...
This is my first attempt at starting a casual conversation on LW where people don't have to worry about winning or losing points, and can just relax and have social fun together.
So, Big Bang Theory. That series got me wondering. It seems to be about "geeks", and not the basement-dwelling variety either; they're highly successful and accomplished professionals, each in their own field. One of them has been an astronaut, even. And yet, everything they ever accomplish amounts to absolutely nothing in terms of social recognition or even in terms of personal happiness. And the thing is, it doesn't even get better for their "normal" counterparts, who are just as miserable and petty.
Consider, then; how would being rationalists would affect the characters on this show? The writing of the show relies a lot on laughing at people rather than with them; would rationalist characters subvert that? And how would that rationalist outlook express itself given their personalities? (After all, notice how amazingly different from each other Yudkowsky, Hanson, and Alicorn are, just to name a few; they emphasize rather different things, and take different approaches to both truth-testing and problem-solving).
Note: this discussion does not need to be about rationalism. It can be a casual, normal discussion about the series. Relax and enjoy yourselves.
But the reason I brought up that series is that its characters are excellent examples of high intelligence hampered by immense irrationality. The apex of this is represented by Dr. Sheldon Cooper, who is, essentially, a complete fundamentalist over every single thing in his life; he applies this attitude to everything, right down to people's favorite flavor of pudding: Raj is "axiomatically wrong" to prefer tapioca, because the best pudding is chocolate. Period. This attitude makes him a far, far worse scientist than he thinks, as he refuses to even consider any criticism of his methods or results.