fourlier
8
2
fourlier has not written any posts yet.
fourlier has not written any posts yet.
Yes, Lukeprog seems mostly academically likeable, and the text snippet in the comments on this page from the paper he's prepping is more like what I would hope for.
I was using "philosophy" as a byword for far, unlike, and what Luke may be closer to. The specific ref is that it's what Luke used (I believe) before explicitly just replacing with "Cog Sci".
Anyway, I don't disagree with you much (within the range of my having misinterpreted), so I'll skip the meta-talking and just try to say what I am thinking.
I try to imagine myself as a reviewer of a Singularity Institute paper. I'm not an expert in... (read 396 more words →)
Something dumb people say an awful lot: If only you read blank, you'd agree with me.
It's also something LessWrongians say a lot. Even the better breed of cat hereabouts has this tendency. The top post is something of an example, without the usual implied normative: If only other people read LessWrong more closely, they'd realize it's mainstream (in parts). Luke, kindly, places the onus on himself, doubtless as an act of (instrumentally rational) noblesse oblige.
That's background. I feel it is background most LessWrongians are somewhat aware of. I feel Luke's attitude in the top post (placing the onus on himself) is an extension of the principle that lightly or easily telling people to read the sequences is dopey.
So, now to the converation.
Romeo: People are idiots. Me: You're an idiot. Romeo: You can't read. Me: Just who isn't reading, you or me? Or more generally, LessWrong or the rest of the world? Seems like a common problem.
I enjoyed casting myself in the part of "the rest of the world".