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.

OrphanWilde comments on [Link] Lifehack Article Promoting LessWrong, Rationality Dojo, and Rationality: From AI to Zombies - Less Wrong Discussion

9 Post author: Gleb_Tsipursky 14 November 2015 08:34PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (71)

CC Licenced

Tags: effectivealtruism ea intentionalinsights wordspreading agency raisingsanitywaterline rationality

Comments (71)

Sort By: Best

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

Comment author: OrphanWilde 16 November 2015 08:39:06PM 4 points [-]

The extent of Ella's interactions with LW to this point have been entirely praising how you and your writings have somehow mysteriously improved her rationality - if she's an aspiring rationalist, she should spend less of her time considering how great you are, and spend more of it examining her own mind.

Her comments share a lot in common with the compliments of yourself filling Intentional Insight's About Us page, really.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky comment score below threshold [+] (8 children)

Comment author: OrphanWilde 17 November 2015 12:59:20PM 3 points [-]

It's not surprising that she has a positive opinion about my activities, is it?

No, no it isn't, since you do.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 17 November 2015 07:08:53PM * -1 points [-]

I'm confused by your point.

I also noticed you chose not to respond to the point about CFAR's testimonials. Are you backing down from that claim?

Comment author: OrphanWilde 17 November 2015 07:48:48PM 3 points [-]

...I seem to recall a reasonably-popular post on LW not too long ago talking about people relying on debate tactics. I found myself disagreeing with it because I'd never met somebody who actually argued like they were in a debate, tracking points, with victory depending on whether or not you left points unaddressed. I found the whole thing vaguely ridiculous, predicated on a style of argument I had never encountered, in spite of years spent arguing on the internet.

I'm updating now. People who think debate rules apply outside debate club do exist.

Now, to dissect what I just did, I combined an admission that I was wrong about something, with a note that I was updating my beliefs - both extremely positive things on Less Wrong. And I did so in the context of eviscerating anything like a point you might have thought you had, by linking your behavior to a recently-noted poor practice in rationality. I established my own virtue while cutting yours down; if I had thought your point was worth avoiding due to its danger to my position, I would simultaneously have cut off any ability of you to bring up the point again without looking even more pathetic and losing even more face. That is artfully executed Dark Arts.

It wasn't a danger, incidentally. The reason I didn't respond to it is that it wasn't worth responding to. Bluntly, if you can't tell the difference between endorsements of yourself personally and endorsements of your organization, you're not running an organization at all, you're running a cult of personality. Which ties into another thing - if Ella is an independent person... well, I say the word "independent", but she behaves more like an extension of yourself, reflecting even your style of writing/speech. Which is to say, she behaves like a member of a cult.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 17 November 2015 07:59:59PM -2 points [-]

Congratulations on your artfully executed Dark Arts. I hope any Less Wronger can see through the Dark Arts.

Endorsements of Intentional Insights content created by me is endorsements of me personally? That is a very strange thing to say for an aspiring rationalist. There's a difference between the person and her/his actions.

Thanks for the accusation of me being a cult leader. I appreciate the sentiment, but it places me on too high a pedestal, I think.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 17 November 2015 08:20:06PM 1 point [-]

Congratulations on your artfully executed Dark Arts.

Thank you. Congratulations on your artful use of graciousness as a literary weapon.

I hope any Less Wronger can see through the Dark Arts.

Your hope is misplaced. Nobody can reliably see through the Dark Arts. I lack sufficient hubris to claim that even for myself, an individual who I hold in very high regard.

Endorsements of Intentional Insights content created by me is endorsements of me personally?

Endorsements of you, personally. As in "Dr. Tsipursky has done a terrific job..." and "Dr. Tsipursky has done a great job..." and "Tsipursky, a college professor and scholar of scientific and research-based approaches to answering big questions has put together a step by step guide to help you reflect on what you really and truly care about" and "Gleb Tsipursky brings useful tools, based on the fruits of recent scientific and academic research, to those seeking to use reason in their personal search for meaning and purpose" and "[Dr. Tsipursky's book] Find Your Purpose Using Science clearly is one of the centerpieces of humanist education" and "Professor Tsipursky shows us that..." and "Dr. Tsipursky, without rancor, demonstrates successfully to my mind that..." and "Dr. Tsipurky's voice is unique, speaking to the hope, idealism, angst and empowerment of the current global population" and I'm tired of copying comments.

I inserted your name into the "centerpieces of humanist education" one, but otherwise, every single one of those endorsements, supposedly of your organization, are about you, personally.

Thanks for the accusation of me being a cult leader. I appreciate the sentiment, but it places me on too high a pedestal, I think.

You're not a particularly good one, if it makes you feel any better. You just crib the notes of people who are good at it, and openly admit to it.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 17 November 2015 08:34:59PM 0 points [-]

I hear that you're triggered by those endorsements. However, all those endorsements are standard style endorsements for a book. They point not to me, but to my actions, and evaluations of my actions in writing the book to which those comments refer.

If you actually focus on interpreting what they say, they do not say "Dr. Tsipursky is awesome." They say things like "Dr. Tsipursky has done a terrific job..." and "Dr. Tsipursky has done a great job" etc. They are about my actions. These actions draw support from people, who wish then to show support through endorsing the book.

The book was published by Intentional Insights. I am also donating more than half the profit from author's royalties to Intentional Insights. So this is an Intentional Insights book as much as my own. Hope that clarifies things.

Anyway, I see that you intend to keep trolling me. Please consider how your actions and words come off to others. Thanks!

Comment author: OrphanWilde 17 November 2015 08:43:36PM 5 points [-]

If you believe that I am trolling you, the correct response is not to reply, not keep "feeding the trolls".

An observation: Every conversation between us that has ended, has ended because I chose not to reply. The same is true of every other conversation I see you involved in. You're incapable of not replying.

Comment author: dxu 19 April 2016 04:57:19PM 2 points [-]

...Well, that's one way to get someone to stop replying.

OrphanWilde comments on [Link] Lifehack Article Promoting LessWrong, Rationality Dojo, and Rationality: From AI to Zombies - Less Wrong Discussion

Article Navigation

Comments (71)

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 (71)

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