= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Don't believe my advocacy of the moral position is not really just signaling or don't believe I've held the moral position since 1992?
I don't know how long you've held the position, or much care - I don't think it's relevant. But it is signaling, I think, for 2 reasons:
- Your public concern with saying it's not signaling is just a way of signaling;
- Claiming a certain timespan of belief is just an old locker room way of saying "I got here first." Which surely is signaling.
This is the sort of thing that causes unnecessary splintering in groups. I have a very visceral reaction to this sort of signaling (which I would label preening, actually). Perhaps I should examine that.
In fact, agreement is a sort of spam - it consumes space and usually doesn't bring new thoughts. When I imagine a typical conference where the participants are constantly running out of time, visualising the 5-minute question interval consumed by praise to the speaker helps me a lot in rationalising why the disagreement culture is necessary. Not that it would be the real reason why I would flee screaming out of the room, I would probably do even if the time wasn't a problem.
When I read the debates at e.g. daylightatheism.org I am often disgusted by how much agreement there is (and it is definitely not a Dark Side blog). So I think I am strongly immersed in the disagreement culture. But, all cultural prejudices aside, I will probably always find a discussion consisting of "you are brilliant" type statements extraordinarily boring.
You didn't read Eliezer's post very carefully, did you? You need more practice in agreement and conformity. There are a limited number of "right" answers out there. It's alright to agree on them, when they are found.
In response to
Why Our Kind Can't Cooperate
Those who suspect me of advocating my unconventional moral position to signal my edgy innovativeness or my nonconformity should consider that I have held the position since 1992, but only since 2007 have I posted about it or discussed it with anyone but a handful of friends.
I don't believe you.
However, that's not the only reason I might hesitate to post my agreement; I might prefer only to post when I have something to add, which would more usually be disagreement. Since I don't only vote up things I agree with, perhaps I should start hacking on the feature that allows you to say "6 members marked their broad agreement with this point (click for list of members)".
That would be great.
That would be a great feature, I think. Ditto on on broad disagreements.
In response to
Rationalist Poetry Fans, Unite!
How about some amusing 'beat' poetry? Storm, Tim Minchin
In response to
Rationalist Poetry Fans, Unite!
On the Nature of Things by Lucretious was an epic poem to reason.
Other than the misspelling, absolutely - Lucretius (Titus Lucretius Carus)
A highlight:
This terror, then, this darkness of the mind, Not sunrise with its flaring spokes of light, Nor glittering arrows of morning can disperse, But only Nature's aspect and her law, Which, teaching us, hath this exordium: Nothing from nothing ever yet was born.
ah, about...1991-1994, so that explains it nicely. Did you get Reading Rainbow and Where in the World is Carmen San Diego before and after, by any chance?
Did see Reading Rainbow, although I think this was later ... late 80s?. We had Where In The World Is Carmen San Diego as a computer game, late 80s, also, I believe. The game was boring as sin.
In response to
Little Johny Bayesian
Nice work. Clean up the meter and I'll print it out to read to my daughter. You can never start 'em too young.
checks wikipedia
you're quite right =)
It's odd I don't remember the original Bloodhound Gang then, I do remember 3-2-1 Contact...did the Bloodhound Gang perhaps either replace or predate Mathnet? Because that's what I remember -- two faux-FBI agents solving crimes by triangulation and the fibonacci sequence and so forth.
3-2-1 Contact - that was the name of that show - not the Electric Company. That's the bad 80s hit, isn't it ...?
I don't remember seeing anything called Mathnet. My 3-2-1 Contact memories are roughly 1980-1984, somewhere thereabouts. Yours?
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
art died when relativism came along. yes, some works are better than others. and it's not even hard to distinguish between them.
Sorry, Nazgul. That makes no sense.