= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Grognor comments on What Is Signaling, Really? - LessWrong
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 (169)
The first half of the first sentence of your comment is incomprehensible. "If you throw enough money into the hole that you spend less" is somewhere between gibberish and severely sleep-deprived mumblings.
A -2 score means almost nothing. Two people downvoted your comment, so what?
Calling the community "pathetic" in response to downvotes is hypocrisy.
In all likelihood, the downvoters did not even recognize your "Keynesian slant" and were downvoting because signaling. Oftentimes people will downvote a -1 comment just by the principle of social proof. These are humans, you know.
Don't make up theories about the whole population of this website by two downvotes to a difficult-to-understand comment. Also, you are abusing the term "groupthink", which has a technical meaning that you are not using.
Anything other than an orthodox-libertarian conspiracy to silence the Keynesians by downvoting small amounts.
Point-by-point response:
Thank you. Edited to clarify the meaning.
-2 is certainly at least two standard deviations down for my comments (excluding the "whine" followup, which I was fully aware was going to be downvoted and posted anyway), so I considered it a clear enough signal to be worthy of comment. [Edit: on reconsidering, I realize that I meant below 2.5th percentile, not really 2 standard deviations down. Variance is large, so 2 SD down would have to be almost as far down as one of my best comments is up.]
Hypocrisy? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Fair enough.
Good points about generalizing and about the meaning of "groupthink". I meant "epistemic closure", not "groupthink", and that was sloppy.
"anything other": I still think it was a reasonable hypothesis (though your use of the word "conspiracy" is an unfair caricature; I was fully aware that it was just two people, and never said otherwise); but if I read you as saying that I should have thought "anything other" as well as this hypothesis, then your point is telling. I did fail to consider any specific alternative hypotheses (mentioning them only generally at the end), and thus deserved the -4 I got for my whine.