= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I fail to see how. I had an opinion about the thread, and in addition, an opinion about that opinion: that it was worth expressing. So I did. Others may disagree with either of those opinions (for example you), but they do not choose my actions. I do. What is the score in this hypothetical game? (It isn't the karma rating of Multiheaded's post.)
If you make your opinion more prominent by expressing it in a post instead of an upvote, you encourage others to do the same, thus lesswrong has more non-content posts and nothing much is accomplished by anyone. Since so far this thread has two posts of the type I describe, I guess the score is 1-1.
I approve of this posting.
(In this case, I didn't think my silent upvote was enough.)
Be aware you're playing a zero-sum game at best here.
I'm really glad this was the first comment. While reading the post I kept thinking, 'OK, extreme commitment contracts are interesting, but why did peirce pick such a bad example? I'm pretty sure social anxiety doesn't work like that for most people.' Then I got to the conclusion.
Really, it doesn't even have to be disrupting your daily life. When someone says "I want to be less anxious," seeing a professional is way above merciless commitment to exposure therapy on the list of obvious things to try. Commit to doing that, if you want. (And if you're still really into the exposure therapy, start with making eye contact with strangers in public and maybe smiling. Build up small successes first, and it'll be easier to avoid the paralysis of feeling bad about bad feelings.)
What sort of professional do you see if you want to do some minor self-help thing like improve social skills?
I hate drunken hate-filled rants, so I'm downvoting you.
I mildly disapprove of posts with no purpose other than to state the posters unqualified opinion. Public yea/nea voting is imo not needed or desirable, especially on a forum with a karma system.
Richard Kennaway's post below yours is just as bad for exactly the same reason, of course.
In response to
Motivation and Merciless Commitment Contracts
My issue with commitment contracts is that I have no reason to believe they will do anything but make me miserable, and I don't have enough money to risk. If I precommit to pay $5 if I fail at a certain task, I have no reason to believe that at the end of the given time period, I won't be short 1% of my total wealth and worse off emotionally.
I find it interesting that you think there is no reason to believe that a financial incentive would change your behavior.
The Flynn Effect is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/3 IQ point per year. So unless your girlfriend is 120 years younger than your grandmother...
Also the Flynn Effect is observed in similar magnitudes in men and women. IQyou/IQyourgirlfriend is predicted to be the same as IQgrandpa/IQgrandma, at least the part of that ratio attributable to the Flynn effect.
He didn't actually mention the Flynn effect in the above post.
How many points does it take?
Last I checked it was something like 10.
You thought his username gave you over 13 bits of evidence?
The username contains more than 13 bits of information (being 14 characters long) so this might not be too unreasonable.
people casually assert extremely controversial opinions as fact
So, is this something we want people to do? If not, maybe we should start calling it out? I suspect it's a bad thing myself.
I think It's a bad thing to the extent that it could lead to opinions propagating without debate.
In the wider world, even things like atheism are "extremely controversial," but I don't think we need to make dramatic shows of uncertainty and humility every time someone brings it up; most all of us here are atheists and we need to move on and discuss the more difficult questions. What I worry about is that a community norm of being vocal about our opinions but not discussing them rationally or even at all most of the time then we may wind up deciding what to think via memetic exposure and perhaps evaporative cooling instead of rationality. This sort of effect would also be a danger if we had a norm of being verbally abusive to anyone with an unpopular opinion, of course.
Note that I can't offer evidence that this is a real risk or a phenomenon that actually happens in online communities, but it worries me.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Only in the language of political correctness. In the real world, encouraging others to do the same looks like this: "Hey everyone, post your opinion!"
This "score" is in your own head. Anyone can keep "score" by whatever rules they like. It is of no importance.
I concede, my original post was poorly thought out and sort of meaningless.