Comment author: wedrifid 30 August 2011 03:02:08AM 2 points [-]

I think I'm just going to go read this thing in order and ignore any responses to my comments for a bit...

That sounds like an inefficient use of your time (also note that the conversation spans several posts).

This isn't even an interesting thread relative to other flame wars we've had!

Comment author: JackEmpty 30 August 2011 03:13:27AM 2 points [-]

Yes, but I've got the complicated issue of taking your interjection entirely truthfully. I don't strongly believe you have any motivation to lie to me, but I may want to go through a few just to verify.

In any case, I'm not going to do it now, just when I have some spare time and am not browsing other comments.

This isn't even an interesting thread relative to other flame wars we've had!

I only really started posting comments in March of this year. Reading the comments at all about a month or so before then, and have been reading LW itself for a little over a year. I may still be a little green for any of the more interesting flame wars.

And yet crap, I'm already doing what I said I wouldn't. Shucks.

Comment author: wedrifid 30 August 2011 02:52:49AM *  7 points [-]

In the interest of full disclosure, I read the majority of this exchange in unordered chunks from the Recent Comments and mostly-backwards by going up context levels and trying to figure it out.

I can see why reading in that order/style would leave you just shooting Silas. :)

Here's a question though... who would you have tazed first?

Chronologically Luke. He was insane way back when the claims were first made/not defended and Silas hadn't gone insane yet. If I were to enter the room now after observing from outside I would shoot Silas first, pointedly shoot Luke as well and give everyone else in the room a stern look. Then I'd confiscate your tazer and turn in my confessors hood myself. Because I don't want that kind of responsibility.

I'd keep the tazers. Because I have yet to meet anyone who I would trust to confessor at me, even though there are those whose advice I value. I would always take care to position myself with my back to the wall such that I could see the movements of any confessors and rely on my reflexes and laser tag prowess to protect me from any nosy interventionists. If necessary I'd take them all out in a massive confessor tazing spree.

Comment author: JackEmpty 30 August 2011 02:57:59AM 0 points [-]

Can I take back what I said about being cool with you tazing me?

I think I'm just going to go read this thing in order and ignore any responses to my comments for a bit...

Comment author: wedrifid 30 August 2011 02:20:15AM 4 points [-]

If I was a Confessor I would have tazed you by now.

I would have tazed you in turn. Not because you tazed Silas - I'd have done that too for his own sake. Rather, I'd have tazed you for the reasons you gave. You are observing two people bitching at each other each with their own (vastly different) kind of insanity and siding with the one with the most status and whose insane bitching is the most skilled (and socially typical). You are tazing the unsophisticated, lower status insane bitcher.

The evidence given suggests you are well suited to be a player in the social environment but not a confessor. In the future, when it matters, you can be expected to act as a social enforcer and not as a last bastion of sanity.

Comment author: JackEmpty 30 August 2011 02:42:22AM 1 point [-]

In the interest of full disclosure, I read the majority of this exchange in unordered chunks from the Recent Comments and mostly-backwards by going up context levels and trying to figure it out. And like I said to paper-machine I don't mean to say I'm exceptionally good at judging sanity violations, just being pithy.

I'll probably later on read them in some more-ordered fashion and see if I would taze luke too (even taking into account your claim you would).

Glad to know you'd be there to taze me if I started to go insane. It is appreciated. Not that I'm evaluating you as a fully superpowerful Confessor at the moment or anything. Here's a question though... who would you have tazed first?

Comment author: [deleted] 30 August 2011 01:49:58AM 4 points [-]

If I were a Confessor I would have tazed you by now.

That's probably why Confessors don't exist. We're not ready from them; we haven't grown up enough to cope with even a single, tiny dissenting voice without resorting to threats of counterfactual violence.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Help Fund Lukeprog at SIAI
Comment author: JackEmpty 30 August 2011 02:01:36AM 2 points [-]

If I were a Confessor I would have tazed you by now.

Thanks for pointing that out. Typing quickly on the go does not afford much spell/grammar checking.

And yes, by all means, I only meant that from reading (most of) the comments and discussion on this topic that I in my current state would have tazed him, had I the job description of a Confessor. I didn't mean to imply that I was exceptionally good at judging sanity violations in any way, just a reference and a pithy statement of my view.

Comment author: thomblake 29 August 2011 07:06:19PM 8 points [-]

Luke,

I appreciate your efforts to decode this 'Olympus mentality' nonsense, and in general to make sure you're not making communication errors. But at this point I believe you're just wasting your time. You've documented your research methods better than I've ever seen someone do, and they certainly don't need defending here.

On behalf of those who believe your work can positively impact the future of humanity and your time can be better spent elsewhere, I humbly request that you please file what you've been responding to under 'trolling' and move on.

Comment author: JackEmpty 29 August 2011 07:21:14PM 3 points [-]

I agree. This makes a perfect end point to the discussion, and unless anything actually relevant comes up, not reiteration of the same points, ignoring their previous refutations, you should stop it here.

In response to comment by Kaj_Sotala on Polyhacking
Comment author: wisnij 29 August 2011 06:48:48PM 2 points [-]

I have occasional fantasies of men and enjoy some varieties of shounen-ai/yaoi, but I'm almost never attracted to men in real life, though there have been a couple of exceptions. I can never figure out if I should call myself straight or bi, though straight is probably closer to the mark.

Heteroflexible?

In response to comment by wisnij on Polyhacking
Comment author: JackEmpty 29 August 2011 06:55:39PM 2 points [-]

I've identified as that before, but I find it doesn't really apply well anymore.

Instead of slapping labels onto finer and finer grained levels of the fluid scale, I just have a clearly defined set of things that I will do with men, and a clearly defined set of things I will do with women, and that's sufficient for me.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Polyhacking
Comment author: Alicorn 29 August 2011 06:51:31PM 13 points [-]

I platonically snuggle with some of my male friends too. And I have photographic evidence of some guys I know who are not dating each other snuggling, too.

I guess I don't know how typical it is. I don't know many normal people and suspect they're dull.

In response to comment by Alicorn on Polyhacking
Comment author: JackEmpty 29 August 2011 06:52:41PM 4 points [-]

I don't know many normal people and suspect they're dull.

Upvoted for this.

Comment author: SilasBarta 29 August 2011 05:58:29PM -1 points [-]

Even now, there are only 3 threads on your mini-camp result announcement topic, and mine is at the top, 16 comments in total. 90% of the discussion is about the request for evidence. No need to "zoom in" on anything, nor re-check frequently. Please, stop trying to come up with stories to account for not having seen it; it's obvious you just never came back.

And really, it's not some kind of mortal sin or anything -- I don't see why you're goint to such lengths to justify it.

Comment author: JackEmpty 29 August 2011 06:26:28PM 9 points [-]

If I was a Confessor I would have tazed you by now.

I am alright with your original questions on this, but now you're stretching. You seem to be going to unnecessary extremes to find fault with anything and everything that Luke has said on this. I judge this a violation of sanity.

Comment author: Trendsettaren 25 August 2011 04:43:28PM 1 point [-]

I think most people would come up with the correct answer 'with extension'. Such as 'increasing by 2 in ascending order' where the correct answer 'ascending order' is the basis that they have then specified further. In my eyes they have then given a partially correct answer and should not strive so hard to 'avoid this mistake' in the future. My reasoning is that you might then 'dismiss out of hand' a partially correct answer and by default do the same to the 'fully correct answer'. It is better then, to make a habit out of breaking down a hypotheses before dismissing it. Or you could just use up all your energy on convincing yourself that nothing should be believed, ever. Since belief means to know without proof.

Comment author: JackEmpty 25 August 2011 05:17:57PM 5 points [-]

Hey there! Welcome to Less Wrong!

I'd say you should read the Sequences, but that's clearly what you're doing :D. I'd suggest going ahead and introducing yourself over here.

I agree with you that some people might come up with the rule, but with unnecessary additions. The point of looking into the dark is that people may tend to add on to those extensions, when they should really be shaving them down to their core. And they can only do so (Or at least do so more effectively.) by looking into the dark.

Also, that's not exactly the commonly accepted definition of "Belief" around here. For what most would think of when you refer to "belief" check out here, here, and the related The Simple Truth article, and really the entire Map and Territory sequence

Again, welcome!

Comment author: [deleted] 18 August 2011 02:21:10PM 1 point [-]

That Urban Dictionary definition entails that "disgust" does imply a moral component or a judgement that something is universally wrong. However, in my experience, it does not. I can easily imagine a little kid, or a grown adult, declaring a given food or smell or sight "disgusting" without having any objection to its existence. (I can, of course, also imagine a news article in which people interviewed describe someone's immoral behavior as disgusting.) The OED Online describes the word mainly as a visceral reaction and only in passing says it may be brought about by a "disagreeable action".

Instead of creating a new word for what "disgust" currently means and making "disgust" mean something else, perhaps we should leave "disgust" as it is and come up with a word for "moral revulsion". Something like "consternation" or "appallment".

Comment author: JackEmpty 18 August 2011 03:14:00PM 1 point [-]

Yeah, it does seem to be phrased such as to imply that.

I can easily imagine a little kid, or a grown adult, declaring a given food or smell or sight "disgusting" without having any objection to its existence. (I can, of course, also imagine a news article in which people interviewed describe someone's immoral behavior as disgusting.)

So the denotative meaning only very mildly indicates a potential for moral revulsion. But used in certain contexts, it does have heavy (heavier) connotations of moral revulsion. I think it's useful to have words for both the physical reaction side and for the moral reaction side, but I disagree with the UD definition in that "disgust" can be more of a generic umbrella term.

So... in other words, use "disgusted" when it's clear, or you mean both. Use "squicked" when it's unclear, and you want to only imply a physical reaction. And use "appalled" when you want to heavily imply moral reaction.

This is all just speculation and suggestion, but I do still hold that the word is useful.

View more: Next