Comment author: Dorikka 24 January 2011 04:34:48AM 3 points [-]

Upvoted and agree. I don't really have anything more to add.

Comment author: anon895 24 January 2011 07:13:08AM 4 points [-]

I know the above post only had one downvote, but just to check: Didn't we already have a discussion on how signalling agreement with things is a normal part of healthy human interaction and cooperation, and that we don't really want to suppress it for some mechanical standard of "high content" or "signal/noise"?

Comment author: anon895 24 January 2011 06:45:53AM *  0 points [-]

Partway through, I had the urge to look up a past comment saying something like "I've seen philosophers argue, in apparently total sincerity, whether a man in a desert seeing a mirage of a lake that coincidentally has a lake just beyond it "really" knows the lake is there".

Unfortunately I can't find it now; it probably either didn't use the exact word "mirage", used another metaphor entirely, or was actually on OB. Searching "mirage" brought up a similar metaphor in Righting a Wrong Question, but that's making a different point.

Comment author: steven0461 20 January 2011 09:05:47PM *  1 point [-]

That's a good point, but where do you recommend getting contrarian glee separate from communication?

Comment author: anon895 24 January 2011 12:06:26AM 2 points [-]

Here, of course.

Comment author: anon895 20 January 2011 10:49:45PM 3 points [-]

...yep, didn't make it. I'll have to get to the bank early tomorrow and hope the mail is slow.

Comment author: anon895 21 January 2011 10:06:10PM 2 points [-]

Ended up making the transfer over the phone.

Comment author: anon895 20 January 2011 05:32:50PM *  13 points [-]

In a possibly bad decision, I put a $1000 check in the mailbox with the intent of going out and transferring the money to my checking account later today. That puts them at $123,700 using Silas' count.

Comment author: anon895 20 January 2011 10:49:45PM 3 points [-]

...yep, didn't make it. I'll have to get to the bank early tomorrow and hope the mail is slow.

Comment author: anon895 20 January 2011 05:32:50PM *  13 points [-]

In a possibly bad decision, I put a $1000 check in the mailbox with the intent of going out and transferring the money to my checking account later today. That puts them at $123,700 using Silas' count.

Comment author: Singuhilarity 12 January 2011 02:08:58PM 5 points [-]

I recently started a theoretically humorous webcomic about the Singularity entitled Singuhilarity. It's poorly drawn and a little rough in places, but it touches on a number of lesswrong-type subjects as well as some pretty standard science fiction tropes.

Here's the first comic and here's the latest.

Comment author: anon895 15 January 2011 06:00:13PM *  0 points [-]

Read first comic, said to self "This is terrible" halfway through, didn't read further. There may be room for improvement.

Comment author: shokwave 30 November 2010 08:37:09AM 0 points [-]

Yeah, thanks for correcting. And I definitely agree, disagreements are not universally solved by one party admitting fault - but I do feel that there are a large number of cases on LessWrong where I don't know if one side made a mistake, or if the case doesn't have a right answer, or whatnot. And I would like to see more of those cases, the ones floating in between, to be resolved in either one direction or the other.

Comment author: anon895 01 December 2010 09:07:01AM *  0 points [-]

Part of the problem is that any attempt at direct enforcement or pressure could deter people from commenting in the first place, knowing that if they did they'd be expected to see any disagreements through to the end. (That's been mentioned in previous threads, I think.)

Random thought: Would individuals trying to shift the norm by setting an example work any better? Like, one person going through their comment history (possibly using the link here), and making a list in their profile page of unresolved disagreements and their current status (possibly including otherwise unvoiced ones), plus a list of resolved disagreements and how they were resolved, or a list of posts and comments that led them to shift their beliefs (incrementally or otherwise) on something?

Not volunteering either way, though. In the past I've occasionally killed time reading my old posts on forums, and on reading regrettable things I've tried to fix them by amending them in replies or putting notes about them my profile, but that doesn't seem like the same thing.

Basically, it seems you(general) would need to make a deliberate effort to continue discussions even after it becomes pure work, because you value having a site where disagreements are resolved more than you value anything else you might be doing with that time.

Edit: I idealistically hope that when agreement is impractical, people who try long enough can still reach a better level of understanding than the standard "agreement to disagree" cliché.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 16 June 2009 07:55:06PM *  7 points [-]

Yes, it's a bit of a koan, and somewhat tangential. It's about the ineluctability of reality, saying that while you must win, you may not win, even if you do everything right. Even the ultimate in rationality is not a get out of jail free card, neither in the backcountry nor anywhere else.

Maybe you can read Swahili. Maybe you are so familiar with hunting rifles you could assemble it blindfolded. Great -- today you get to win. Or maybe the tiger comes by RIGHT NOW. You lose.

"You have before you the Alcor prospectus. In fifty years your body will wear out and die."

Comment author: anon895 30 November 2010 10:17:30PM 0 points [-]

That clarifies it for me. Possibly related: Beyond the Reach of God.

Comment author: anon895 29 November 2010 03:44:50AM 4 points [-]

Possibly related: Taking Ideas Seriously.

View more: Prev | Next

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit