I had hoped that by asking him to write clearly, he would need to have a point to make clear. You are probably right that this is not the case.

Regarding 1, automating could be done so that anybody whose net karma is below a certain negative threshold (e.g., -5/-10/-20) gets their account suspended for 1 month, and next time they visit the site, there is a notification that the account was suspended and a link to a page that spells out community netiquette and norms that are expected to be adhered to. After the account is unsuspended, the individual may post again, and if they drop another 5/10/20 points in karma, the account is permanently disabled and/or deleted.

This seems more likely to result in people taking the feedback constructively and staying around as readers who may one day be able to contribute positively, as well as avoiding much of the drama that sometimes results in these kinds of situations, though I'm glad that happyseaurchin took the advice constructively in this case.

Regarding 2, we definitely do need a prominent section in the About page (and probably as part of the sign-up process) that spells out posting standards and norms that happyseaurchin violated.

P.S. I'm one of those who voted you down repeatedly in the hope that you would think about why you were being consistently downvoted and adjust your behavior accordingly, but I hope you stay around as a reader, starting with the really old material and the wiki (also, work on your grammar/writing skills). At some point, you may sign up again and participate productively.

There's not really any polite way to say this, but when your recent comments all get downvoted, it means you need to stop posting here. Since it's not fair to expect commenters to exercise constant vigilance on people who can't take a hint, further comments from you will be deleted. G'bye.

Even if there is only one type of thing 'x', our reality (which is, above all, dynamic) seems to require a relationship and interaction between 'x' and ' ~x'. I'd say, logically, reality needs at least two kinds of things.

Logic can only compel models.

You seem to be saying "Let x denote the universe. ~x is then a valid term. So ~x must denote something that isn't x, thus there are two things!" There are surface problems with this such as that x may not be of type boolean, and that you're just assuming every term denotes something. But the important problem is simpler: we can use logic to deduce things about our models, but logic doesn't touch reality itself (apart from the part of reality that is us).

What do you mean by "reality is dynamic"? Have you read Timeless Physics?

Amusing conceptual backdrop. A more obvious explanation to the false projection of sexiness inherently in women, is that the expected audience respond to representations of sexiness associated with women which they experience directly. But you know this... I think the trick in reading these articles is outlining how you think about things, and perhaps outlining a set of thinking principles such that I can experience.

I came up with a similar concept, "insider understanding", and this is the most articulate and precise example of it I have seen. Thanks. I need to know a little more about naive bayes classifications, but I like the two levels of category and qualia wrt network 2, and the potential residence of the cognitive mistake.

Mother Teresa had lots of status as a consequence of successful and effective self-promotion, which is precisely why she came to mind as an example of a non-status seeking person rather than failing to come to mind becaus you had never heard of her.

Mother Teresa isn't hard to explain on this model. She could be gaining normal status covertly, like Michael Vassar says. She could be feeling good about herself and her status because she thinks that her altruism makes her a better person than others. Or she could feel good about herself and her status because she's serving God, which makes her a better person than others.

I prefer to abstract the dynamic to "oppositional state" rather than personify into a "contrarian". That is, a contrarian is someone who places themselves in an oppositional state to another.

i came to this dormant thread from the future: http://lesswrong.com/lw/1k4/the_contrarian_status_catch22/1ckj.

Seems to me there is a mismapping of multiple worlds wrt quantum physics and the multiple worlds we create subjectively. I personally steer clear of physics and concern myself more with the subjective realities we create. This seems to me to be more congruent with the material that eliezer presents here, ie wrt logic and occam's razor, and what he presents in the article linked above, ie wrt contrarian dynamics and feelings of satisfaction et al.