= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
(1) We are aware. There are important reasons for keeping a moderation system anyway. Practical suggestions for rational groupthink-alleviating measures would be appreciated, although possibly not implemented.
(2) Bear in mind the selection effect of who reads, votes, and replies to a thread on a given topic. Last year's survey showed more people who had decided to forgo cryonics than signed up for preservation by a factor of sixteen.
(3) You are not yet a sufficiently impressive figure within this community to induce people to reconsider their judgments merely by expressing disapproval.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Ok, this is the point where I decide to be mildly obnoxious and use Sam's work as an indication that humans have many more cognitive biases and fallacies than even people at LW realize. In particular, the above post displays a large amount of artificial classification in trying to claim that specific scale issues somehow become differences in kind. This seems very similar to (for example) creationists who claim to accept microevolution but not macroevolution. Moreover, the presence of these problems does not leave in some cases even after prolonged exposure to careful rational and critical thinking.
The fourth point does a good example of this:
To be sure, there are other problems here as well (such as the heavy overlap between a,b and c and the fact that a seems to take "death" as a potentially ontological fundamental phenomenon), but the issue I want to focus on is c, "is the general concept of organ preservation able to be scaled to entire bodies or is there a limit to what can be restarted?" This is an assertion that while any single part of a system can be restarted, somehow it takes a much higher burden of evidence to assert that the entire system can be restarted. This seems similar to the micro/macro fallacy but I'm not sure what precisely the fallacy is. I'd almost be tempted to coin a new one, something like "failure to reduce."
I have to wonder if this sort of thing is an indication that LW is not substantially succeeding in improving rationality. Sam's first comment on LW was about a year ago, and his posting quality has either remained the same or declined during that time (although to be fair it is difficult to distinguish between rationality and civility issues in his case.) Now, it seems based on comments Sam has made that it is probable that he hasn't read the sequences. Sam's emphasis on wanting to only read "authorities" may play a role but that may be simply a specific defense in this case against reading posts which challenge his worldview (the strongest evidence for this case is that people have summarized the demand for particular proof argument and he's still ignoring or misinterpreting it) . Is Sam a representative sample? If there are a substantial number of people here who have gone through and interacted with the community and yet have not improved their rationality, does that suggest we have a problem that requires a change in tactics?
Sam certainly isn't the only example of this sort of problem, and even the general community here sometimes demonstrates strong biases that impact their evaluation of claims(I've noticed this most strongly where evaluations of historical claims are concerned). So, are we succeeding? Should the presence of people like Sam mean we should be concerned that we are not?
I am going to break my own rule and respond to plonked thing.
It says: "To be sure, there are other problems here as well (such as the heavy overlap between a,b and c and the fact that a seems to take "death" as a potentially ontological fundamental phenomenon), but the issue I want to focus on is c, "is the general concept of organ preservation able to be scaled to entire bodies or is there a limit to what can be restarted?" This is an assertion that while any single part of a system can be restarted, somehow it takes a much higher burden of evidence to assert that the entire system can be restarted."
Not even close, missed by a mile, I am merely point out that these issues are by no means a resolved. If you think they are then you are blithely unaware of current science.
"This seems similar to the micro/macro fallacy but I'm not sure what precisely the fallacy is. I'd almost be tempted to coin a new one, something like "failure to reduce.""
Wrong again as per-usual, you mindless chat bot, I made no logical error since I never asserted anything I merely pointed out a set of open questions which still have yet to be resolved. Your blind faith that the answer is one way and not the other is a reflection of your own arrogance and humiliating ignorance, not of any logical failings on my part.
As for coining a term here's one: HumanusIgnoramius - a human devoid of real knowledge while having no clinically diagnosed mental shortcomings/deficiencies.
"Sam's emphasis on wanting to only read "authorities" may play a role but that may be simply a specific defense in this case against reading posts which challenge his worldview (the strongest evidence for this case is that people have summarized the demand for particular proof argument and he's still ignoring or misinterpreting it) "
1.) Where does Eliezer work? Has he worked any where else of note? 1.A) Singularity Institute as to the other part not that I am aware. If he had worked at a real research lab like Intel or something I think his inflated ego would dictate he tell us all that he poured coffee in the lab for the real scientists.
2.) Is his place of employment significant? 2.A) No (by that I mean small influence, small budget, small accomplishments)
3.) Has Eliezer published? 3.A) Yes in Springer
4.) Was it a technical paper? 4.A) No
5.) Is the journal respectable? 5.A) Sure but it is also well within reach of your average college student to publish there.
6.) Has he published anything else? 6.A) Yes, a single chapter in a book
7.) Is this significant? 7.A) Not so much because it is really not that far out of the ordinary
8.) Does Eliezer have any advanced degrees? 8.A) No
9.) Are Eliezer's claims of authority based on real scholarship? 9.A) Based on above answers no since two non-technical works hardly count as sufficient scholarship. (Plus I watched the youtube video about his mind and he said his IQ is 138 or something like that. He didn't even say what test; my guess is Cattell meaning his IQ is closer to 119. For some one who speaks so arrogantly thats a little low and a little devoid of achievement to make up the difference.)
10.) If Eliezer is not a personal acquaintance of mine, and all the people who quote him are mindless chat bots, and a gaggle of eager young minds hoping to be molded by the first thing that comes down the pike. Is he a source that I will trust and bother to read for more then the amusement of mocking it? 10.A) No, no way, absolutely not, never, negative ain't gonna happen, not a chance lance, not in a million years, over my dead body, over my rotting corpse etc.
I hope I have put this issue to bed. Gosh I have no life here I am throwing more pearls before swine.
I do however have a confession to make: I have since I started reading this "blog" dearly wanted to ridicule the majority of the people here. What I realized though is that it would all sound the same since you all are really deserving of the same ridicule.
*plonk mk2 final version etc.