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

Comment author: TheSinceriousOne 19 January 2017 07:06:03PM 13 points [-]

I started blogging recently. Some rationalists have apparently found it good. I would like to make these posts I'm writing contributions to the LessWrong project. I would like to cross-post instead of link my posts. But am only comfortable doing so under a pseudonym because of options I want to leave open for things to discuss on my blog.

I have therefore recently created this new account. I think I need 10 karma or something to post though. So, soon (TM). When I get around to posting some helpful comments to earn it.

Comment author: gjm 20 January 2017 01:54:53AM 1 point [-]

It looks as if your decision to say "I will earn some karma" rather than "I am new here, please upvote this and give me some karma" has led to everyone upvoting your comment. I find this both amusing and pleasing.

Comment author: gworley 19 January 2017 07:43:19PM 4 points [-]

I think a serious issue with posting content on Less Wrong, and why I don't do it beyond link posts, is that Less Wrong feels like a ghetto, in that it's a place only for an outcast subset of the population. I don't feel like I can just share Less Wrong articles to many places because Less Wrong lacks respectability in wider society and is only respectable with those who are part of the LW ghetto's culture.

This doesn't mean the ghetto needs to be destroyed, but it does suggest that many of our brightest folks will seek other venues for expression that are more respectable, even if it's dropping (rising) to the neutral level of respectability offered by an anonymous blog. We might come home and prefer to live in LW (the discussions), but an important part of our public selves is oriented towards participating with the larger world.

Maybe as a reader you'd like Less Wrong to be a better place to read things again, just as the average person living in a ghetto may prefer for its luminaries to continue to focus their efforts inward and thus make the ghetto better on average, but as a writer Less Wrong doesn't feel to me like a place I want to work unless I don't think I can make myself respectable to a wider audience.

Comment author: gjm 20 January 2017 01:53:15AM 0 points [-]

Do you think the Less Wrong of, say, two years ago was less ghetto-ish?

Comment author: jsalvatier 19 January 2017 07:57:18PM *  3 points [-]

I wonder if we could find a scalable way of crossposting facebook and g+ comments? The way Jeff Kaufmann does on his blog (see the comments: https://www.jefftk.com/p/leaving-google-joining-wave)

That would lower the frictions substantially.

Comment author: gjm 20 January 2017 01:51:53AM 1 point [-]

I personally would favour any approach that minimizes the amount of discourse that happens in walled gardens like Facebook and Google+.

Comment author: Lumifer 19 January 2017 07:57:02PM 1 point [-]

What is "post-rationality"?

Comment author: gjm 19 January 2017 08:18:41PM *  5 points [-]

Knowing about rationalism plus feeling superior to rationalists :-).

EDITED to add: I hope my snark doesn't make gworley feel blown-back-at, silenced, and intolerably stressed. That's not at all my purpose. I'll make the point I was making a bit more explicitly.

  • Reading "post-rationalist" stuff, I genuinely do often get the impression that people become "post-rationalists" when they have been exposed to rationalism but find rationalists a group they don't want to affiliate with (e.g., because they seem disagreeably nerdy).
  • As shev said, post-rationalists' complaints about rationalism do sometimes look rather strawy; that's one thing that gives me the trying-to-look-different vibe.
  • The (alleged) differences that aren't just complaints about strawmen generally seem to me to be simply wrong.
  • Here's the first Google hit (for me) for "post-rationalist": , a kinda-neoreactionary site set up by ex-LWers. Its summary of how post-rationalists differ from rationalists seems fairly typical. Let's see what it has to say.
    • First of all it complains of "some of the silliness" of modern conceptions of rationalist. (OK, then.)
    • Then it says that there's more to thinking than propositional belief (perhaps there are rationalists who deny that, but I don't think I know any) and says that post-rationalists see truth "as a sometimes-applicable proxy for usefulness rather than an always-applicable end in itself" (the standard rationalist position, in so far as there is one, is that truth is usually useful and that deliberately embracing untruth for pragmatic reasons tends to get you in a mess; rationalists also tend to like truth, to value it terminally).
    • So here we have one implicit strawman (that rationalists think propositional belief is everything), another implicit strawman (that rationalists don't recognize that truth and usefulness can in principle diverge), something I think is simply an error if I've understood correctly (the suggestion that untruth is often more useful than truth), and what looks like a failure of empathy (obliviousness to the possibility that someone might simply prefer to be right, just as they might prefer to be comfortable).
    • Then it suggests that values shouldn't be taken as axiomatic fundamental truths but that they often arise from social phenomena (so far as I can tell, this is also generally understood by rationalists).
    • Then we are told that "some rationalists have a reductionistic and mechanistic theory of mind" (how true this is depends on how those weaselly words "reductionistic" and "mechanistic" are understood) and think that it's useful to identify biases and try to patch them; post-rationalists, on the other hand, understand that the mind is too complex for that to work and we should treat it as a black box.
    • Here we may have an actual point of disagreement, but let's proceed with caution. First of all, the sort of mechanistic reductionism that LW-style rationalists fairly universally endorse is in fact also endorsed by our post-rationalists, in the same paragraph ("while the mind is ultimately a reducible machine"). But I think it's fair to say that rationalists are generally somewhat optimistic about the prospects of improving one's thinking by, er, "overcoming bias". But it is also widely recognized that this doesn't always work, that in many cases knowing about a bias just makes you more willing to accuse your opponents of it; I think there's at least one thing along those lines in the Sequences, so it's not something we've been taught recently by the post-rationalists. So I think the point of disagreement here is this: Are there a substantial number of heuristics implemented in our brains that, in today's environment, can be bettered by deliberate "system-2" calculation? I do think the answer is yes; it seems like our post-rationalists think it's no; but if they've given reasons for that other than handwaving about evolution, I haven't seen them.
    • They elaborate on this to say it's foolish to try to found our practical reasoning in theory rather than common sense and intuition. (This is more or less the same as the previous complaint, and I think we have a similar disagreement here.)
    • And then they list a bunch of things post-rationalists apparently have "an appreciation for": tradition, ritual, modes of experience beyond detached skepticism, etc. (Mostly straw, this; the typical rationalist position seems to be that these things can be helpful or harmful and that many of their common forms are harmful; that isn't at all the same thing as not "appreciating" them.)
  • So, a lot of that does indeed seem to consist of strawmanning plus feeling superior. Not, of course, all of it; but enough to (I think) explain some of the negative attitude gworley describes getting from rationalists.
Comment author: TiffanyAching 18 January 2017 11:48:16PM 0 points [-]

I'm dying to know, who the heck is this Eugine character? I keep seeing the name but I don't know the backstory.

Comment author: gjm 19 January 2017 02:54:54PM 3 points [-]

OK, here's the back story.

Once upon a time, there was an LW user called Eugine_Nier. (Not, I believe, the person's actual name, but a pun on "engineer".) Eugine was on the whole a valued LW contributor. There was at least one respect in which his positions tended to be some way from those of the typical LW user; he was considerably to the "right" on various sociopolitical issues, and quite outspokenly so.

Eugine got into arguments about race, gender, feminism and the like from time to time. After a while, some people noticed that after getting into such arguments they were mysteriously getting an awful lot of downvotes: it seemed that someone was going through their old comments and voting them down regardless of content. It didn't take long to figure out that it was almost certainly Eugine doing it. The people this happened to were mostly ones who had had arguments with Eugine, but in some cases the trigger seemed to be merely expressing views markedly different from his. (Anything smacking of feminism or "social justice" was liable to attract the Wrath of Eugine.)

After a while, Eugine got banned from LW; I think it was for a combination of this mass-downvoting behaviour (which is generally considered improper; votes are "meant" to be expressions of opinion about particular comments rather than particular users; but note that this opinion is not universally agreed with on LW). Soon after, another account popped up whose behaviour was notably similar to Eugine's, and the mass-downvoting was observed not to have stopped.

Eugine's new account was banned. Another one appeared. That was banned. Another appeared. After a while, new Eugine accounts were appearing faster than the old ones were closed down.

While this was going on, Eugine's behaviour changed a bit too. More and more of his comments were on those sociopolitical issues, they were more and more consistently hostile in tone, and he had less and less to say about anything else. And his mass-downvoting became (at least for some of his targets) more aggressive, with sockpuppet accounts used to downvote people multiple times.

Immediately before downvoting was disabled altogether a little while ago, a few LWers (I was one; I think a couple of the mods were, too) were being mass-downvoted by Eugine's sockpuppets according to the following principle: Make sure that anything these people post has a negative net score. If you look at my user page and go back a few months, you will probably see that almost everything is at -1; if you hover your mouse over the scores and do the necessary calculations, you will see that many of them are at +6-7 or +7-8 or something of the sort. (Not, I think, because these were really excellent comments that would have been at +6 or +7 without Eugine; but because they were perfectly decent comments that would have been at 0 or +1 or thereabouts, and that got upvoted by others when Eugine's sockpuppets voted them down.)

I think Eugine's goals were (1) drive away people with the "wrong" sociopolitical views by making posting to LW an unpleasant activity for them, (2) make people with the "wrong" sociopolitical views look worse (it's hard to ignore those karma scores completely when looking at a comment), and later on perhaps just (3) burn the whole thing down because it's a nest of those awful feminists and social justice types.

There are various fairly obvious technical measures that could be taken against this sort of behaviour. Unfortunately, digging in the LW database and modifying the LW code are both very awkward, because the people who actually run it and have control over the data and the code are not LW participants and have more urgent calls on their time, and also because the code (basically an old version of Reddit) is a bit strange (the way the database is organized is not very convenient for manual investigation). So the moderators' actions have mostly been limited to playing whack-a-mole with Eugine's accounts.

I've been a little vague about Eugine's actual opinions above, partly because describing the opinions of someone with whom you strongly disagree is perilous and partly because the conflict between Eugine and most of the rest of LW is as much about values and attitudes as about factual opinions, but here's a rough sketch of how I think he sees the world. The racial prejudices commonly found in e.g. the US are based on fact; black people are systematically stupider and worse behaved than white people, and to a good approximation no black person has ever done anything truly impressive and admirable. Concern about police mistreatment of black people is nonsense; the police are just reacting appropriately to black criminality. Women are less intelligent than men, and if they are less likely to get hired by academic departments or promoted to executive positions or whatever then that, again, is simply a rational response to their inferiority. Talk of black, or gay, or transgender, "pride" is stupid: the perverts and trannies have nothing to be proud of. "Social justice" is basically a power-grab by groups without the ability to get power and respect by actually earning them. The best social structures are ones that put those people in their place and favour the genuinely superior. In case anyone's been skim-reading, I will reiterate that that's my attempt to sketch Eugine's position; my own is quite different.

Comment author: dropspindle 18 January 2017 06:29:25PM 0 points [-]

I am nearly certain Flinter is just Eugene's new way of trolling now that there aren't downvotes. Don't feed the troll

Comment author: gjm 18 January 2017 11:35:29PM 1 point [-]

I'm pretty sure not. There are lots of things elsewhere on the internet that show every sign of being written by the same person, whose preoccupations seem quite different from Eugine's.

Comment author: Flinter 17 January 2017 05:00:55PM 0 points [-]

OK. Would you care to help me understand correctly, or are you more interested in telling me how stupid I am?

There is no possible modification I could make to my definition of "ideal" that would make any difference to my understanding of your use of the phrase "ideal money". I have already explained this twice.

Existing merely as an image in the mind:

An ideal is a concept or standard of perfection, existing merely as an image in the mind, or based upon a person or upon conduct: We admire the high ideals of a religious person

I think you erred saying there is no possible modification.

Er, what? No, I haven't (more accurately, hadn't) heard of it because no one mentioned it to me before. Is that difficult to understand?

Yes and you are going to suggest we are not ignoring Nash, but we are.

Nash is not being ignored here. "Ideal money" has not been a topic of conversation here before, so far as I can recall. If your evidence that Nash is "ignored" here is that we have not been talking about "ideal money", you should consider two other hypotheses: (1) that the LW community is interested in Nash but not in "ideal money" and (2) that the LW community is interested in Nash but happens not to have come across "ideal money" before. I think #2 is probably the actual explanation, however preposterous you may find it that anyone would read anything about Nash and not know about your pet topic.

Yes and in the future everyone is going to laugh at you all for claiming and pretending to be smart, and pretending to honor Nash, when the reality is, Nash spanked you all.

(I think I already mentioned that Nasar's book about Nash doesn't see fit to mention "ideal money" in its index. It's a popular biography rather than an academic study, and the index may not perfectly reflect the text, but I think this is sufficient to show that it's possible for a reasonable person to look quite deeply at Nash's life and not come to the conclusion that "ideal money" is "the main body of work that Nash was working on nearly his whole life".)

Yup she ignored his life's work, his greatest passion, and if you watch his interviews he thinks its hilarious.

The person who removed your earlier post has already explained that what he was actually saying about Hayek was not "Hayek is better than Nash" but "please don't think I'm removing this because I dislike the ideas; I am a fan of Hayek and these ideas of Nash's resemble Hayek's". This is more or less the exact opposite of your characterization of what happened.

No, it will be shown they thought it was an inconsequential move because they felt Nash's Ideal Money was insignificant. It was a subjective play.

Comment author: gjm 17 January 2017 06:29:17PM 0 points [-]

I think you erred saying there is no possible modification.

Nope. But if you tell me that when you say "ideal money" you mean "a system of money that is ideal in the sense of existing merely as an image in the mind", why then I will adjust my understanding of how you use the phrase. Note that this doesn't involve any change at all in my general understanding of the word "ideal", which I already knew sometimes has the particular sense you mention (and sometimes has other senses); what you have told me is how you are using it in this particular compound term.

In any case, this is quite different from how Nash uses the term. If you read his article in the Southern Economic Journal, you will see things like this, in the abstract:

I present [...] a specific proposal about how a system or systems of "ideal money" might be established and employed

(so he is thinking of this as something that can actual happen, not something that by definition exists merely as an image in the mind). Similarly, later on,

the possibilities with regard to actually establishing a norm of money systems that could qualify as "ideal" are dependent on the political circumstances of the world.

(so, again, he is thinking of such systems as potentially actualizable) and, a couple of paragraphs later,

We of Terra could be taught how to have ideal monetary systems if wise and benevolent extraterrestrials were to take us in hand and administer our national money systems [...]

(so he says explicitly it could actually happen if we had the right guidance; note also that he here envisages ideal monetary systems, plural, suggesting that in this instance he isn't claiming that there's one true set of value ratios that will necessarily be reached). In between those last two he refers to

"good" or "ideal" money

so he clearly has in mind (not necessarily exclusively) a quite different meaning of "ideal", namely "perfect" or "flawless".

you are going to suggest we are not ignoring Nash, but we are.

It doesn't look much like that for me.

in the future everyone is going to laugh at you all

In the future everyone will have forgotten us all, most likely.

for claiming and pretending to be smart

Do please show me where I either claimed or pretended to be smart. (If you ask my opinion of my intelligence I will tell you, but no such thing has come up in this discussion and I don't see any reason why it should. If my arguments are good, it doesn't matter if I'm generally stupid; if my arguments are bad, it doesn't matter if I'm generally clever.)

she ignored his life's work, his greatest passion

So far, you have presented no evidence at all that this is a reasonable description. Would you care to remedy that? In any case, what's relevant right now is not whether "ideal money" was Nash's greatest passion, but whether it should have been obvious to us that it was (since you are taking the absence of earlier discussion of "ideal money" as indication that LW has been ignoring Nash). And, however hilarious Nash may or may not have found it, I repeat that the fact that a reasonable person writing a fairly lengthy biography of Nash didn't make a big deal of "ideal money" is strong evidence that other people may reasonably think likewise. Even if we are wrong.

Comment author: Flinter 17 January 2017 03:50:50PM 0 points [-]

To the first set of paragraphs...ie:

But if you try to start the same discussion by saying or implying that there is such a currency

If I start by saying there IS such a currency? What does "ideal" mean to you? I think you aren't using the standard definition: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/ogt/do_we_share_a_defintion_for_the_word_ideal/

But it looks to me as if something like the stronger claim I treated you as making is actually needed for "ideal money" to be any kind of solution to AI value alignment problems.

I did not come here to specifically make claims in regard to AI. What does it mean to ignore Nash's works, his argument, and the general concept of what Ideal Money is...and then to say that my delivery and argument is weak in regard to AI?

And what you said before was definitely that we do all agree on money, but now you seem to have retreated to the weaker claim that we will or we might or we would in a suitably abstracted world or something.

No you have not understood the nature of money. A money is chosen by the general market, it is propriety. This is what I mean to say in this regard, no more, no less. To tell me you don't like money therefore not "everyone" uses it is petty and simply perpetuating conflict.

There is nothing to argue about in regard to pointing out that we converge on it, in the sense that we all socially agree to it. If you want to show that I am wrong by saying that you specifically don't, or one , or two people, then you are not interesting in dialogue you are being petty and silly.

Comment author: gjm 17 January 2017 06:11:04PM 0 points [-]

What does "ideal" mean to you?

It means, in this context, "the first word of the technical term 'ideal money' which Flinter has been using, and which I am hoping at some point he will give us his actual definition of".

If I start by saying there IS such a currency? What does "ideal" mean to you?

You began by saying this:

I would like to suggest, as a blanket observation and proposal, that most of these difficult problems described, especially on a site like this, are easily solvable with the introduction of an objective and ultra-stable metric for valuation.

which, as I said at the time, looks at least as much like "There is such a metric" as like "Let's explore the consequences of having such a metric". Then later you said "It converges on money" (not, e.g., "it and money converge on a single coherent metric of value"). Then when asked whether you were saying that Nash has actually found an incorruptible measure of value, you said yes.

I appreciate that when asked explicitly whether such a thing exists you say no. But you don't seem to be taking any steps to avoid giving the impression that it's already around.

I did not come here to specifically make claims in regard to AI.

Nope. But you introduced this whole business in the context of AI value alignment, and the possible relevance of your (interpretation of Nash's) proposal to the Less Wrong community rests partly on its applicability to that sort of problem.

What does it mean to ignore Nash's works, his argument, and the general concept of what Ideal Money is ... and then to say that my delivery and argument is weak in regard to AI?

I'm here discussing this stuff with you. I am not (so far as I am aware) ignoring anything you say. What exactly is your objection? That I didn't, as soon as you mentioned John Nash, go off and spend a week studying his thoughts on this matter before responding to you? I have read the Nash lecture you linked, and also his earlier paper on Ideal Money published in the Southern Economic Journal. What do you think I am ignoring, and why do you think I am ignoring it?

But your question is an odd one. It seems to be asking, more or less, "How dare you have interests and priorities that differ from mine?". I hope it's clear that that question isn't actually the sort that deserves an answer.

No you have not understood the nature of money. A money is chosen by the general market, it is propriety.

I think I understand the nature of money OK, but I'm not sure I understand what you are saying about it. "A money"? Do you mean a currency, or do you mean a monetary valuation of a good, or something else? What is "the general market", in a world where there are lots and lots of different markets, many of which use different currencies? In the language I speak, "propriety" mostly means "the quality of being proper" which seems obviously not to be your meaning. It also (much less commonly) means "ownership", which seems a more likely meaning, but I'm not sure what it actually means to say "money is ownership". Would you care to clarify?

This is what I mean to say in this regard, no more, no less.

It seems to me entirely different from your earlier statements to which I was replying. Perhaps everything will become clearer when you explain more carefully what you mean by "A money is chosen by the general market, it is propriety".

To tell me you don't like money therefore not "everyone" uses it [...]

Clearly our difficulties of communication run both ways. I have told you neither of those things. I like money a great deal, and while indeed not everyone uses it (there are, I think, some societies around that don't use money) it's close enough to universally used for most purposes. (Though not everyone uses the same money, of course.)

I genuinely don't see how to get from anything I have said to "you don't like money therefore not everyone uses it".

There is nothing to argue about in regard to pointing out that we converge on it, in the sense that we all socially agree to it.

I think, again, some clarification is called for. When you spoke of "converging on money", you surely didn't just mean that (almost) everyone uses money. The claim I thought you were making, in context, was something like this: "If we imagine people getting smarter and more rational without limit, their value systems will necessarily converge to a particular limit, and that limit is money." (Which, in turn, I take to mean something like this: to decide which of X and Y is better, compute their prices and compare numerically.) It wasn't clear at the time what sort of "money" you meant, but you said explicitly that the results are knowable and had been found by John Nash. All of this goes much, much further than saying that we all use money, and further than saying that we have (or might in the future hope to have) a consistent set of prices for tradeable goods.

It would be very helpful if you would say clearly and explicitly what you mean by saying that values "converge on money".

[...] you specifically [...] or one, or two people [...]

I mentioned my own attitudes not in order to say "I am a counterexample, therefore your universal generalization is false" but to say "I am a counterexample, and I see no reason to think I am vastly atypical, therefore your universal generalization is probably badly false". I apologize if that wasn't clear enough.

Comment author: Flinter 17 January 2017 03:52:06PM 0 points [-]

So you refuse to discuss Nash's works then and you will continue to troll me and derail attempts to discuss the actual content of ideal money?

Comment author: gjm 17 January 2017 05:30:05PM 0 points [-]

So you refuse to discuss Nash's works then

Where on earth do you get that from?

and you will continue to troll me and derail attempts to discuss the actual content of ideal money?

I have done, and intend to do, neither of those things.

Comment author: Flinter 17 January 2017 04:01:51PM 0 points [-]

As I have just said elsewhere in our discussion, I am not using any definition of the word "ideal". I may of course have misunderstood what you mean by "ideal money", but if so it is not because I am assuming it means "money which is ideal" according to any more general meaning of "ideal".

Ya you misunderstood. And you still haven't double checked your definition of ideal. Are you sure its correct?

I have so far seen nothing that convinces me that he intended any such implication. In any case, of course the relevant question is not what Nash thought about it but what's actually true; even someone as clever as Nash can be wrong (as e.g. he probably was when he thought he was the Pope) so we could do with some actual arguments and evidence on this score rather than just an appeal to authority.

Ya you are a smart person that can completely ignore the argument posed by Nash but can still kinda sorta backhandedly show that he is wrong, without risking your persona....you are a clever arguer aren't you?

That depends on what you omitted. For instance, if the person who removed your post gave you a cogent explanation of why and it ended with some jokey remark that "personally I always preferred Hayek anyway", it would be grossly misleading to say what you did (which gives the impression that "Hayek > Nash" was the mod's reason for removing your post).

It is the reason, and you would call it grossly misleading. Let's find the significance of Nash's work, and then it will be obvious the mod moderated me because of their own (admitted) ignorance.

I do not know who removed your post (for that matter I have only your word that anything was removed, though for the avoidance of doubt I would bet heavily that you aren't lying about that) but my impression is that on the whole the LW community is more favourably disposed towards Nash than towards Hayek. Not that that should matter. In any case: I'm sorry if this is too blunt, but I flatly disbelieve your implication that your post was removed because a moderator prefers Hayek to Nash, and I gravely doubt that it was removed with a given reason that a reasonable person other than you would interpret as being because the moderator prefers Hayek to Nash.

So are stuck in trying to win arguments which is the root reason why you haven't even heard of the main body of work that Nash was working on nearly his whole life. You are ignorant to the entire purpose of his career and thesis to his works. It's an advanced straw man to continue to suggest a mod wouldn't mod me the way I said, and not to address Nash's works.

Nash is not favored over Hayek, Nash is being ignored here, the most significance work he has produced nobody here even knows existed (if you find one person that heard of it hear, do you think that would prove me wrong?).

Ignorance towards Nash, is the reason the mod moved my thread, unsurprisingly they came to the public thread to say Hayek > Nash...You don't know, but that is a theme among many players in regard to their theories on economics and money...but the Hayek's are simply ignorant and wrong. And they haven't traversed Nash's works.

Comment author: gjm 17 January 2017 04:43:53PM 0 points [-]

Ya you misunderstood.

OK. Would you care to help me understand correctly, or are you more interested in telling me how stupid I am?

And you still haven't double checked your definition of ideal. Are you sure its correct?

There is no possible modification I could make to my definition of "ideal" that would make any difference to my understanding of your use of the phrase "ideal money". I have already explained this twice.

Ya you are a smart person [...] you are a clever arguer aren't you?

If you would like to make some actual arguments rather than sneering at me then I am happy to discuss things.

It is the reason, and you would call it grossly misleading.

At this point, I simply do not believe you when you say it is the reason. Not because I think you are lying; but it doesn't look to me as if you are thinking clearly at any time when your opinions or actions are being challenged.

Let's find the significance of Nash's work, and then it will be obvious the mod moderated me because of their own (admitted) ignorance.

In the absence of more information about what the moderator said, no possible information about the significance of Nash's work could bring that about.

So are stuck in trying to win arguments which is the root reason why you haven't even heard of the main body of work that Nash was working on nearly his whole life.

Er, what? No, I haven't (more accurately, hadn't) heard of it because no one mentioned it to me before. Is that difficult to understand?

Nash is being ignored here, the most significance work he has produced nobody here even knows existed

Nash is not being ignored here. "Ideal money" has not been a topic of conversation here before, so far as I can recall. If your evidence that Nash is "ignored" here is that we have not been talking about "ideal money", you should consider two other hypotheses: (1) that the LW community is interested in Nash but not in "ideal money" and (2) that the LW community is interested in Nash but happens not to have come across "ideal money" before. I think #2 is probably the actual explanation, however preposterous you may find it that anyone would read anything about Nash and not know about your pet topic.

(I think I already mentioned that Nasar's book about Nash doesn't see fit to mention "ideal money" in its index. It's a popular biography rather than an academic study, and the index may not perfectly reflect the text, but I think this is sufficient to show that it's possible for a reasonable person to look quite deeply at Nash's life and not come to the conclusion that "ideal money" is "the main body of work that Nash was working on nearly his whole life".)

The person who removed your earlier post has already explained that what he was actually saying about Hayek was not "Hayek is better than Nash" but "please don't think I'm removing this because I dislike the ideas; I am a fan of Hayek and these ideas of Nash's resemble Hayek's". This is more or less the exact opposite of your characterization of what happened.

View more: Next