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

Comment author: hairyfigment 11 April 2015 06:14:03PM 1 point [-]

I'd forgotten that mass-downvoter and sockpuppeteer Eugine Nier was the one who refused this bet. (Of course he wants to keep his anonymity!) I'd also mostly forgotten that you defended his nonsense. In retrospect, you encouraged him to try and drive me away from the site.

Note that I was totally correct, and the two of you were totally wrong. There is nothing special about the Bible that prevents me from just taking all the dishonest tricks used by Thomism to defend it, and applying them to Pastafarianism. In fact, a religion that praises pirates is a more natural fit for the theology originally written by Aristotle (tutor of famed pirate/emperor Alexander).

Comment author: Will_Newsome 05 May 2015 06:31:48AM 0 points [-]

Note that I was totally correct, and the two of you were totally wrong

hahahaha

haaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha

Comment author: swfrank 13 December 2014 04:42:50PM 81 points [-]

Hi everyone. Author here. I'll maybe reply in a more granular way later, but to quickly clear up a few things:

-I didn't write the headlines. But of course they're the first thing readers encounter, so I won't expect you to assess my intentions without reference to them. That said, I especially wanted to get readers up to half-speed on a lot of complicated issues, so that we can have a more sophisticated discussion going forward.

-A lot fell out during editing. An outtake that will be posted online Monday concerns "normal startup culture"--in which I went to TechCrunch Disrupt. I don't take LW/MIRI/CFAR to be typical of Silicon Valley culture; rather, a part of Bay Area memespace that is poorly understood or ignored but still important. Of course some readers will be put off. Others will explore more deeply, and things that seemed weird at first will come to seem more normal. That's what happened with me, but it took months of exposure. And I still struggle with the coexistence of universalism and elitism in the community, but it's not like I have a wholly satisfying solution; maybe by this time next year I'll be a neoreactionary, who knows!!

-Regarding the statistics and summary of the LW survey. That section was much longer initially, and we kept cutting. I think the last thing to go was a sentence about the liberal/libertarian/socialist/conservative breakdown. We figured that that various "suggestive statistical irrelevancies" would imply the diversity of political opinion. Maybe we were overconfident. Anyway, after the few paragraphs about Thiel, I tried not to treat libertarianism until the final sections, and even there with some sympathy.

-"Overhygienic," I can see how that might be confusing. I meant epistemic hygiene.

-letters@harpers.org for clarifying letters, please! And I'm sam@canopycanopycanopy.com.

-

Comment author: Will_Newsome 14 December 2014 07:34:42PM 7 points [-]

"Almost everyone found politics to be tribal and viscerally upsetting."

This is gold.

Comment author: swfrank 13 December 2014 04:42:50PM 81 points [-]

Hi everyone. Author here. I'll maybe reply in a more granular way later, but to quickly clear up a few things:

-I didn't write the headlines. But of course they're the first thing readers encounter, so I won't expect you to assess my intentions without reference to them. That said, I especially wanted to get readers up to half-speed on a lot of complicated issues, so that we can have a more sophisticated discussion going forward.

-A lot fell out during editing. An outtake that will be posted online Monday concerns "normal startup culture"--in which I went to TechCrunch Disrupt. I don't take LW/MIRI/CFAR to be typical of Silicon Valley culture; rather, a part of Bay Area memespace that is poorly understood or ignored but still important. Of course some readers will be put off. Others will explore more deeply, and things that seemed weird at first will come to seem more normal. That's what happened with me, but it took months of exposure. And I still struggle with the coexistence of universalism and elitism in the community, but it's not like I have a wholly satisfying solution; maybe by this time next year I'll be a neoreactionary, who knows!!

-Regarding the statistics and summary of the LW survey. That section was much longer initially, and we kept cutting. I think the last thing to go was a sentence about the liberal/libertarian/socialist/conservative breakdown. We figured that that various "suggestive statistical irrelevancies" would imply the diversity of political opinion. Maybe we were overconfident. Anyway, after the few paragraphs about Thiel, I tried not to treat libertarianism until the final sections, and even there with some sympathy.

-"Overhygienic," I can see how that might be confusing. I meant epistemic hygiene.

-letters@harpers.org for clarifying letters, please! And I'm sam@canopycanopycanopy.com.

-

Comment author: Will_Newsome 14 December 2014 07:30:31PM 11 points [-]

Good sociology yo, good sardonicism without sneering, best article I've seen about this subculture yet.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 26 November 2014 08:37:22AM 2 points [-]

Anyone from Orange County attending? If so, could I get a ride?

Comment author: Will_Newsome 29 July 2014 01:00:43AM 11 points [-]

If there is evidence for X in MOR and/or canon then it’s fine to post about X without rot13, even if you also have heard privately from Eliezer that X is true. But you should not post that “Eliezer said X is true” unless you use rot13.

Oh, I guess I can post this then: V jnf ng n jrqqvat cnegl guvat n srj lrnef onpx jurer Ryvrmre pbasvezrq gung lbh pna'g yvr va Cnefrygbathr; gur engvbanyr tvira jnf gung Fnynmne jvfurq gb sbfgre pbbeqvangvba orgjrra uvf urvef. V'z abg 100% fher V'z erzrzorevat pbeerpgyl ohg V'z cerggl fher.

Comment author: CellBioGuy 18 July 2014 05:13:19AM *  31 points [-]

Is there anything we should do?

Laugh, as the entire concept (and especially the entire reaction to it by Eliezer and people who take the 'memetic hazard' thing seriously) is and always has been laughable. It's certainly given my ab muscles a workout every now and then over the last three years... maybe with more people getting to see it and getting that exercise it'll be a net good! God, the effort I had to go through to dig through comment threads and find that google cache...

This is also such a delicious example of the Streisand effect...

Comment author: Will_Newsome 18 July 2014 10:41:15AM 19 points [-]

This is also such a delicious example of the Streisand effect...

<puts on Quirrell hat> Yes, Eliezer's Streisanding is almost suspiciously delicious. One begins to wonder if he is in thrall to... well, perhaps it is best not to speculate here, lest we feed the Adversary.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 18 July 2014 09:06:33AM *  -1 points [-]

Dat irony tho.

Is there anything we should do?

Stylistic complaint: "we"? I don't think me reading your post means you and I are a "we". This is a public-facing website, your audience isn't your club.

As to the actual question, CellBioGuy's answer is spot-on.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 08 July 2014 11:22:10AM 18 points [-]

Maybe you could communicate better by being less tricksy , not more.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 11 July 2014 03:31:20PM 1 point [-]
Comment author: mwengler 11 July 2014 10:59:46AM *  4 points [-]

SO we can state that we do not have the technology to stop a banned user from downvoting posts, and we don't have the technology to reverse banned downvotes.

But we do actually have the technology, it is just considered a "severe breach of privacy" to employ it?

And so we have to pretend that accomplishing the identical result by some hacky code into the database to get the same effect on the database is any more or less a breach of privacy, even though it is (potentially) bit-wise identical to just using the simple technology of logging on as the user who's account needsd adjusting, and changing the banned user's password so he can't use the account he is banned from?

Is this some wierd signalling thing, where the appearance that something is really something else is more important than the actuality of it?

Comment author: Will_Newsome 11 July 2014 11:19:39AM 2 points [-]

Is this some wierd signalling thing, where the appearance that something is really something else is more important than the actuality of it?

I think so, yeah. I don't know whether it's reasonable or not but that's what it is. I might be wrong.

Comment author: Kawoomba 10 July 2014 08:43:07PM 1 point [-]

This comment might interest you.

(Placeholder for usual self-deprecating disclaimers; linked comment was written in (insert barely-realistic low time estimate), yada yada.)

Comment author: Will_Newsome 11 July 2014 11:09:06AM *  12 points [-]

Okay, I'm probably never going to actually get very far into my fanfic, so:

The story starts as stereotypical postmodern fare, but it is soon revealed that behind the seemingly postmodern metaphysic there is a Berkeleyan-Leibnizian simulationist metaphysic where programs are only indirectly interacting with other programs despite seeming to share a world, a la Leibniz' monadology. Conflicts then occur between character programs with different levels of measure in different simulations of the author's mind, where the author (me) is basically just a medium for the simulators that are two worlds of emulation up from the narrative programs.

Meanwhile the Order of the Phoenix (led by Dumbledore, a fairly strong rationalist rumored to be an instantiation of the monad known as '[redacted]') has adopted and adapted an old idea of Grindelwald's and is constructing a grand Artifact to invoke the universal prior so that an objective measure over programs can be found, thus ending the increasingly destructive feuds. Different characters help or hinder this endeavor, or seem to help or hinder it, according to whether they think they will be found to be more or less plausible by the Artifact. The conspiracies and infighting are further intensified; Dumbledore has his typical "oh God what have I done" moment.

At some point Voldemort (a very strong postrationalist rumored to be an instantiation of the mysterious monadic complex known as 'muflax') has the idea of messing with the Artifact so as to set up self-fulfilling prophecies within its machinations, and then Harry (a very shameless Will Newsome self-insert, rumored to be in thrall to one of Voldemort's monads) introduces the bright and/or incredibly bad idea of acausally controlling bits of the universal prior itself.

The plot becomes exceedingly complex and difficult to simulate. Gods take notice and launch a crusade to restore monadic equilibrium, but some of the older and more jaded gods have taken a liking to the characters and are considering lending them aid. YHWH is unreachable. The whole mathematical multiverse is on the line, and the gods' crusade may already be too late...

View more: Next