Not to say that everyone is a heathen ;-) but as for those who missed out on the subtlety of my original Goethe post … if they wish to further advertise their lack of sophistication … diss this post.
Please ignore this, unless you are a hydrophobic Canis antarcticus, barking up the wrong tree. Its only purpose is to provide a pissing post to discourage the great unwashed from otherwise fouling the streets. With any luck the post, complete with its surrounding territory, will soon disappear completely off the bottom of the map. There, unfettered by the strictures of reason, the pack can feel free to bark and scratch, whilst attending to their compulsions to lick the sweat off each others balls.
It is not a lack of sophistication to fail to immediately grasp and assume-true one single subtle undermeaning/interpretation of a vague statement.
It is rational prudence. It is the wilful, deliberate, careful act of steeling one’s mind to the resolute knowledge that things are uncertain, and of not seeing patterns where there merely might be, of not projecting meanings onto phrases where meanings are in the mind, of applying what is learned and trained and practiced here on LessWrong.
Or, it might also simply indicate the lack of social training towards guessing passwords.
I am new to LW, and I don’t get it; this is supposed to be a forum promoting rationality, and anyone who dissed this comment appears to be behaving re-actively.
Any rational justifications as to why anyone would respond to the above comment are welcomed, and may be appended below.
The problem is that you seem to be underestimating the relevant inferential distance. Specifically you’re using a lot of jargon in both this and the parent, and we have no idea what you’re talking about.
Not to say that everyone is a heathen ;-) but as for those who missed out on the subtlety of my original Goethe post … if they wish to further advertise their lack of sophistication … diss this post.
Please ignore this, unless you are a hydrophobic Canis antarcticus, barking up the wrong tree. Its only purpose is to provide a pissing post to discourage the great unwashed from otherwise fouling the streets. With any luck the post, complete with its surrounding territory, will soon disappear completely off the bottom of the map. There, unfettered by the strictures of reason, the pack can feel free to bark and scratch, whilst attending to their compulsions to lick the sweat off each others balls.
It is not a lack of sophistication to fail to immediately grasp and assume-true one single subtle undermeaning/interpretation of a vague statement.
It is rational prudence. It is the wilful, deliberate, careful act of steeling one’s mind to the resolute knowledge that things are uncertain, and of not seeing patterns where there merely might be, of not projecting meanings onto phrases where meanings are in the mind, of applying what is learned and trained and practiced here on LessWrong.
Or, it might also simply indicate the lack of social training towards guessing passwords.
I am new to LW, and I don’t get it; this is supposed to be a forum promoting rationality, and anyone who dissed this comment appears to be behaving re-actively.
Any rational justifications as to why anyone would respond to the above comment are welcomed, and may be appended below.
It is rational to downvote comments you want to see fewer of, and your failed attempt at trolling certainly qualifies.
The problem is that you seem to be underestimating the relevant inferential distance. Specifically you’re using a lot of jargon in both this and the parent, and we have no idea what you’re talking about.