= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on Politics Discussion Thread January 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (334)
Can you link to an example of someone using it as a compliment? I don't think this is actually the case. It's simply much less of an insult here than it is in most "skeptic" communities.
Yes:
Yes (a self-description rather than a compliment to someone else, but clearly intended to be read as a worthy attribute):
Here is someone excusing themselves for not being contrarian:
In the first link you quoted me describing Moldbug, I should clarify it was used as a put down. I've said quite explicitly in other posts that I strongly agree with Hanson on contrarianism.
In the second link the person continues:
The third is a good example but it is in an article talking about how weird LessWrong is for its love of contrarianism.
I'll take your word for your intentions, but the article itself gives me no impression that it was intended anything other than seriously.
I did mean "and most of all contrarian" quite seriously, I just didn't expect readers to take that as good. It was meant as a warning since I think Moldbug would be a better thinker if he was less contrarian but I'll update on you reading of it when using the term in the future.
This apparent misunderstanding on second thought isn't surprising since this community is self-selected for the kind of people who like enjoy contrarian arguments. Weird out there (not saying incorrect) beliefs such as buying cryonics being a good idea otherwise wouldn't be popular here.
In addition to this if you visit a site where examples of human cognitive failure are investigate every day and individual debasing techniques discussed, but little ephasis is given on how to build communities that have good epistemology or avoid the biases one seems likely to find the story of "lone genius exposes establishment consensus as nonsense" more plausible than otherwise.