Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Huluk 26 March 2016 12:55:37AM *  26 points [-]

[Survey Taken Thread]

By ancient tradition, if you take the survey you may comment saying you have done so here, and people will upvote you and you will get karma.

Let's make these comments a reply to this post. That way we continue the tradition, but keep the discussion a bit cleaner.

Comment author: Dallas 27 March 2016 01:27:28PM 31 points [-]

For the interests of identity obfuscation, I have rolled a random number between 1 and 100, and have waited for some time afterwards.

On a 1-49: I have taken the survey, and this post was made after a uniformly random period of up to 24 hours.

On a 50-98: I will take the survey after a uniformly random period of up to 72 hours.

On a 99-100: I have not actually taken the survey. Sorry about that, but this really has to be a possible outcome.

Comment author: Dallas 05 March 2015 10:27:08PM *  19 points [-]

Protips:

  • Given both demographics and recent discourse, you are going to want vegetarian and vegan options for food.
  • HPMOR has a large hatedom, for various reasons. Key vectors for trolls are photos, videos, and flyers. Be more conscious than usual about personal boundaries and privacy.
  • Public events are going to bring together people with varying viewpoints; be emotionally prepared for having your bubble popped by culture shock.
  • Betting pools on the number of clueless attendees who showed up for the Potter and forgot about the Rationality are generally frowned upon by the general public. (That means you, Hanson!)
  • Don't be gross, in either appearance or manners.
  • Don't hand out pamphlets to the general public; it looks, you know...
Comment author: NancyLebovitz 02 February 2015 06:22:16PM *  4 points [-]

Sexual harassment mentioned in this article. The bits I quoted include links, but I think it's more trouble than it's worth for me to reformat them for LW, so go back to the freethoughblog timeline if you want details.:

ChristianKl, which article were you referring to?

September, 2008

Gay has recounted in several places, without naming names, a story that while being introduced to Michael Shermer at Dragon*Con in 2008, he made a drunken lunge at her breasts instead of shaking her hand. DJ Grothe has related this story a number of times to a number of people, indicating that he had intervened to stop the public groping from happening.

May 2010

Ashley Miller At a dinner event she attended featuring PZ Myers, Ashley encounters Michael Shermer, who allegedly spoke with her for several minutes while massaging his genitals through his jeans. She describes the incident here.Pamela Gay

May 23rd, 2012

pseudonymous commenter Miriamne A comment left at Friendly Atheist names Michael Shermer as allegedly having harassed her, and “trying to sleep with a new young woman every TAM”.

August 7th, 2013

Unnamed victims via Brian Thompson Brian Thompson, former employee of JREF, claims to personally know a number of women who have been harassed by Shermer, via Twitter. He specifies two instances of ‘being creeped at’, one of ‘being groped’ (by Shermer and/or another alleged creeper, Ben Radford). This could certainly refer to him being present for Shermer’s lunge at Pamela Gay.

Elyse Anders Elyse describes some unwelcome salacious comments from Shermer after she drops a chicken tender at the TAM9 reception buffet.

August 7th, 2013

Unnamed victims via Brian Thompson Brian Thompson, former employee of JREF, claims to personally know a number of women who have been harassed by Shermer, via Twitter. He specifies two instances of ‘being creeped at’, one of ‘being groped’ (by Shermer and/or another alleged creeper, Ben Radford). This could certainly refer to him being present for Shermer’s lunge at Pamela Gay.

Elyse Anders Elyse describes some unwelcome salacious comments from Shermer after she drops a chicken tender at the TAM9 reception buffet.

August 9th, 2013

Unnamed victim through delphi_ote A participant at the JREF forums corroborates the existence of allegations against Michael Shermer by unnamed alleged victims.

August 8th, 2013

Unnamed victims via PZ Myers — Alison Smith PZ Myers posts accounts by sources he trusts regarding allegations of Michael Shermer’s witnessed and experienced predatory tactics and alleged sexual assault of women he coerced into a position where they could not legally consent.

naomibaker naomibaker relates her story about how she was contacted ostensibly by Michael Shermer’s wife asking if the story she told about a cheating husband without names was talking about Michael. She listed names that Shermer had apparently had affairs with, several of the names being recognizeable.

The timeline continues with legal actions and arguments about what happened, but has no additional allegations.

Comment author: Dallas 02 February 2015 08:12:40PM *  2 points [-]

The timeline continues with legal actions and arguments about what happened, but has no additional allegations.

You forgot me.

August 13th, 2013

Dallas J. Haugh

Dallas posts a suicide note which includes allegations of rape against Shermer. It is taken down by a relative when he is secured and taken to a hospital; after he’s released, he reposts it.

Comment author: bramflakes 02 February 2015 12:16:47AM 8 points [-]

Allegedly.

Comment author: Dallas 02 February 2015 03:28:42AM 1 point [-]

Allegedly.

I don't really feel the need to write that when I am aware of it from personal experience.

In response to 2014 Survey Results
Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 04 January 2015 10:43:12AM *  2 points [-]

I think one logical correlation following from the Simulation Argument is underappreciated in the correlations.

I spotted this in the uncorrelated data already:

  • P Supernatural: 6.68 + 20.271 (0, 0, 1) [1386]

  • P God: 8.26 + 21.088 (0, 0.01, 3) [1376]

  • P Simulation 24.31 + 28.2 (1, 10, 50) [1320]

Shouldn't evidence for simulations - and apparently the median belief is 10% for simulation - be evidence for Supernatural influences, for which there is 0% median belief (not even 0.01). After all a simulation implies a simulator and thus a more complex 'outer world' doing the simulation and thus disabling occams razor style arguments against gods.

Admittedly there is a small correlation:

  • P God/P Simulation .110 (1296)

Interestingly this is on the same order as

  • P Aliens/P Simulation .098 (1308)

but there is no correlation listed between P Aliens/P God. Thus my initial hypothesis that aliens running the simulation of gods being the argument behind the 0.11 correlation is invalid.

Note that I mentioned simulation as weak argument for theism earlier.

Comment author: Dallas 04 January 2015 03:46:12PM 0 points [-]

I actually calibrated my P(God) and P(Supernatural) based on P(Simulation), figuring that getting an exact figure for cases where (~Simulation & Supernatural) are basically noise.

I forgot what I actually defined "God" as for my probability estimation, as well as the actual estimation.

Comment author: XiXiDu 26 November 2014 12:23:27PM *  18 points [-]

Since you have not yet replied to my other comment, here is what I have done so far:

(1) I removed many more posts and edited others in such a way that no mention of you, MIRI or LW can be found anymore (except an occasional link to a LW post).[1]

(2) I slightly changed your given disclaimer and added it to my about page:

Note that I wrote some posts, posts that could previously be found on this blog, during a dark period of my life. Eliezer Yudkowsky is a decent and honest person with no ill intent, and anybody can be made to look terrible by selectively collecting all of his quotes one-sidedly as I did. I regret those posts, and leave this note here as an archive to that regret.

The reason for this alteration is that my blog has been around since 2001, and for most of the time it did not contain any mention of you, MIRI, or LW. For a few years it even contained positive referrals to you and MIRI. This can all be checked by looking at e.g. archive.org for domains such as xixidu.com. I estimate that much less than 1% of all content over those years has been related to you or MIRI, and even less was negative.

But my previous comment, in which I asked you to consider that your suggested header would look really weird and confusing if added to completely unrelated posts, still stands. If that's what you desire, let me know. But I hope you are satisfied with the actions I took so far.

[1] If I missed something, let me know.

Comment author: Dallas 26 November 2014 11:24:54PM -2 points [-]

Your updates to your blog as of this post seem to replace "Less Wrong", or "MIRI", or "Eliezer Yudkowsky", with the generic term "AI risk advocates".

This just sounds more insidiously disingenuous.

Comment author: Dallas 23 November 2014 08:25:31PM 7 points [-]

I've had to deal with the stress you are contributing to putting on the broader perception of transhumanism for the weekend, and that is on top of preexisting mental problems. (Whether MIRI/LW is actually representative to this is entirely orthogonal to the point; public perception has and is shifting towards viewing the broader context of futurism as run by neoreactionaries and beige-os with parareligious delusions.)

Of course, that's no reason to stop anything. People are going to be stressed by things independent of their content.

But you are expecting an entity which you have devoted most of blog to criticizing to be caring enough about your psychological state that they take time out to write header statements for each of your posts?

If you want to stop accusations of lying and bad faith, stop spreading the "LW believes in Roko's Basilisk" meme, and do something less directly reputation-warfare escalatory, and more productive-- like hunting down Nazis and creating alternatives to the current decision-theoretic paradigm. (I don't think anybody's going to get that upset over abstract discussions of Newcomb's Problem. At least, I hope.)

Comment author: Error 22 November 2014 10:06:08PM 2 points [-]

I feel the need to switch from Nerd Mode to Dork Mode and ask:

Which would win in a fight, a basilisk or a paperclip maximizer?

Comment author: Dallas 22 November 2014 11:21:38PM 0 points [-]

Paperclip maximizer, obviously. Basilisks typically are static entities, and I'm not sure how you would go about making a credible anti-paperclip 'infohazard'.

Comment author: Dallas 25 October 2014 03:02:42PM 37 points [-]

I completed the survey. (Did not do the digit ratio questions due to lack of available precise tools.)

Comment author: Dallas 23 September 2014 01:57:36AM 1 point [-]

Can you be slightly more specific on the context? Like, at least the vague fields of study it might apply to? This would allow us to make an informed decision.

View more: Next