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.

jsteinhardt 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: jsteinhardt 17 November 2015 05:14:27PM * 8 points [-]

I can understand your dislike of Gleb's approach and even see many of your concerns as justified; do you really think your actions in this thread are helping you get what you want though? They certainly won't make Gleb himself listen to you, and they also don't make you sympathetic to onlookers. To the extent that you have issues with Gleb's actions, it seems like pointing them out in a non-abusive way for others to judge would be far more effective.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 17 November 2015 05:37:10PM 0 points [-]

I can understand your dislike of Gleb's approach and even see many of your concerns as justified; do you really think your actions in this thread are helping you get what you want though?

Yes.

They certainly won't make Gleb himself listen to you

I tried two other tactics first. I addressed him as a fellow rationalist, and also as a fellow user of Dark Arts, and he was completely unresponsive to those tactics.

To the extent that you have issues with Gleb's actions, it seems like pointing them out in a non-abusive way for others to judge would be far more effective.

This way is better. It starts the weight of public opinion in the correct place, and allows him to prove his guilt or innocence on his merits.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky comment score below threshold [+] (19 children)

Comment author: gjm 18 November 2015 12:38:20PM 8 points [-]

It doesn't look like trolling to me. I don't mean that I approve of it, but if it's bad its badness seems to me to have nothing to do with trolling.

Comment author: Lumifer 18 November 2015 04:00:11PM 6 points [-]

Treating is as trolling is Gleb's way of managing the negativity.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 18 November 2015 11:00:07PM -2 points [-]

See my response to gjm above: http://lesswrong.com/lw/mz4/link_lifehack_article_promoting_lesswrong/cwgh

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

Comment author: gjm 18 November 2015 11:14:40PM * 4 points [-]

I take the essence of trolling to be the intention of provoking an angry response. It doesn't look to me as if that was OrphanWilde's goal. (I think, rather, that he was playing to the gallery, having "tried two other tactics first" and found you "completely unresponsive".)

[EDITED to add:] Of course it's possible that OrphanWilde is not being honest about his intentions, or that he's deliberately or accidentally misrepresenting his previous attempts at engagement. So what he's written is compatible with an intention to troll. But he hasn't admitted to trying to troll you, which is what I think you're saying he has done.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 18 November 2015 11:31:27PM 0 points [-]

Ok, let me see if I understand you correctly. You do not consider abusive statements to be trolling? Abusive statements to me by their definition are meant to provoke an angry response.

Comment author: gjm 19 November 2015 10:01:53AM 1 point [-]

Correct: I don't consider them to be trolling. If you make that intention part of your definition of "abusive" then I think they aren't abusive either, for precisely that reason. (Personally I wouldn't say that "abusive" implies intention to provoke an angry response, and I would categorize some of what OrphanWilde's written about you as abusive.)

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 19 November 2015 05:53:25PM 0 points [-]

Ok, then I think we have differences in our interpretation of words like "abusive" and "meant to provoke an angry response." Let's get more specific and concrete to ground things out with an example. For example, OrphanWilde using terms like "you are creepy" to me are ad hominem attacks intentionally meant to provoke an angry response. Would an external observer reading this comment think that this is an ad hominem attack intentionally meant to provoke an angry response - what do you think?

Comment author: Lumifer 19 November 2015 05:59:41PM 4 points [-]

You don't think he actually finds you creepy? Are you sure?

continue this thread »

Comment author: gjm 19 November 2015 07:45:46PM 0 points [-]

Well, I suppose I'm an external observer (I promise that I am neither OrphanWilde nor Gleb_Tsipursky), and I would say yes it's an ad hominem attack but no it's probably not intended to provoke an angry response. I would guess that other external observers with the same context available to them as to me would mostly say the same.

continue this thread »

jsteinhardt 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