Why I think people are not engaging you. But don’t take this as a criticism of your ideas or questions.
You have been strongly associated with a certain movement, and people might not want to engage you in conversation even on different topics, because they are afraid your true intention is to lead the conversation back to ideas that they didn’t want to talk with you about in the first place.
I think username2 was making a non-serious cheeky comment which went over your head and you responded with a wall of text touching on several ideas. People sometimes just want small exchanges and they have no confidence in you to keep exchanges short.
Agreeing with the sentiment that people probably aren’t engaging with this question because it’s too tiresome to summarize all the information that is available, and what is available is probably incomplete as well. By asking such a broad question rather than a narrower, specific, or applied question, you won’t get many responses.
I was being cheeky, yes, but also serious. What do you call a perfect rationalist? A sociopath[1]. A fair amount of rationality training is basically reprogramming oneself to be mechanical in one’s response to evidence and follow scripts for better decision making. And what kind of world would we live in if every single person was perfectly sociopathic in their behaviour? For this reason in part, I think the idea of making the entire world perfectly rationalist is a potentially dangerous proposition and one should at least consider how far along that trajectory we would want to take it.
But the response I gave to ingive was 5 words because for all the other reasons you gave I did not feel it would be a productive use of my time to engage further with him.
[1] ETA: Before I get nitpicked to death, I mean the symptoms often associated with high-functioning sociopathy, not the clinical definition which I’m aware is actually different from what most people associate with the term.
No, you don’t. A perfect rationalist is not a sociopath because a perfect rationalist understands what they are, and by scientific inquiry can constantly update and align themselves with reality. If every single person was a perfect rationalist then the world would be a utopia, in the sense that extreme poverty would instantly be eliminated. You’re assuming that a perfect rationalist cannot see through the illusion of self and identity, and update its beliefs by understanding neuroscience and evolutionary biology. Complete opposite, they will be seen as philanthropic, altruistic and selfless.
In another example, as you and many in society seem to have a fetish for sociopaths, yes you’ll be a sociopath, but not for yourself, for the world. By recognizing your neural activity includes your environment and that they are not separate, that all of us evolved from stardust, and practicing for example meditation or utilizing psychotropic substances, your “Identity” “I” “self” becomes more aligned, and thus what your actions are directed to. That’s called Effective Altruism. (emotions aside, selflessness speaks louder in actions!)
Edit: You changed your post after I replied to you.
[1] ETA: Before I get nitpicked to death, I mean the symptoms often associated with high-functioning sociopathy, not the clinical definition which I’m aware is actually different from what most people associate with the term.
If I remember correctly username2 is a shared account, so the person are talking to now might not be whom you have had previously conversed with. Just thought you should know because I don’t want you to mistake the account with a static person.
It’s unlikely that it’s not the same person, or people on average utilize shared accounts to try and share their suffering (by that I mean have a specific attitude) in a negative way. It would be interesting to compare shared accounts with other accounts by for example IBM Watson personality insights. In a large scale analysis.
By the way, I was not consciously aware of the user when I wrote my text or the analysis of the user agenda. But afterwards I remembered “oh it’s that user again”.
The username2 account exists for a reason. Anonymous speech does have a role in any free debate, and it is virtuous to protect the ability to speak anonymously.
You have been strongly associated with a certain movement, and people might not want to engage you in conversation even on different topics, because they are afraid your true intention is to lead the conversation back to ideas that they didn’t want to talk with you about in the first place.
The password is a Schelling point, the most likely candidate for an account named ‘username’. Consider it a right of passage to guess… (and don’t post it when you discover it).
You have been strongly associated with a certain movement, and people might not want to engage you in conversation even on different topics,
You forgot to say that you think that. But for username 2′s point, you had to reiterate that you think.
because they are afraid your true intention is to lead the conversation back to ideas that they didn’t want to talk with you about in the first place.
That’s unfortunate if it is the case if ideas which are outside their echo chamber create such fear, then what I say might be of use in the first place, if we all come together and figure things out :)
I think username2 was making a non-serious cheeky comment which went over your head and you responded with a wall of text touching on several ideas. People sometimes just want small exchanges and they have no confidence in you to keep exchanges short.
It was but it speaks of his underlying ideas and character to even be in the position to do that. I don’t mind it, I enjoy typing walls of texts. What would you want me to respond, if at all?
Agreeing with the sentiment that people probably aren’t engaging with this question because it’s too tiresome to summarize all the information that is available, and what is available is probably incomplete as well. By asking such a broad question rather than a narrower, specific, or applied question, you won’t get many responses.
Yeah, I think so too, but I do think there is a technological barrier in how this forum was setup for the type of problem-solving I am advising for. If we truly want to be Less Wrong, it’s fine with how it is now, but there can definitely be improvements in an effort for the entire species rather than a small subset of it, 2k people.
It was but it speaks of his underlying ideas and character to even be in the position to do that.
What do you mean by this? Assuming its a joke, why does it speaks to his character and underlying ideas; why would it, it wasn’t meant for you to take seriously.
What do you mean by this? Assuming its a joke, why does it speaks to his character and underlying ideas; why would it, it wasn’t meant for you to take seriously.
Because a few words tell a large story when they also decided it was worth their time to write it. I wrote in my post and explained for example what type of viewpoints it implies and that it’s stupid (in the sense inefficient and not aligned with reality).
Probably not at all.
I will update my probabilities then as I gain more feedback.
Why I think people are not engaging you. But don’t take this as a criticism of your ideas or questions.
You have been strongly associated with a certain movement, and people might not want to engage you in conversation even on different topics, because they are afraid your true intention is to lead the conversation back to ideas that they didn’t want to talk with you about in the first place.
I think username2 was making a non-serious cheeky comment which went over your head and you responded with a wall of text touching on several ideas. People sometimes just want small exchanges and they have no confidence in you to keep exchanges short.
Agreeing with the sentiment that people probably aren’t engaging with this question because it’s too tiresome to summarize all the information that is available, and what is available is probably incomplete as well. By asking such a broad question rather than a narrower, specific, or applied question, you won’t get many responses.
I was being cheeky, yes, but also serious. What do you call a perfect rationalist? A sociopath[1]. A fair amount of rationality training is basically reprogramming oneself to be mechanical in one’s response to evidence and follow scripts for better decision making. And what kind of world would we live in if every single person was perfectly sociopathic in their behaviour? For this reason in part, I think the idea of making the entire world perfectly rationalist is a potentially dangerous proposition and one should at least consider how far along that trajectory we would want to take it.
But the response I gave to ingive was 5 words because for all the other reasons you gave I did not feel it would be a productive use of my time to engage further with him.
[1] ETA: Before I get nitpicked to death, I mean the symptoms often associated with high-functioning sociopathy, not the clinical definition which I’m aware is actually different from what most people associate with the term.
No, you don’t. A perfect rationalist is not a sociopath because a perfect rationalist understands what they are, and by scientific inquiry can constantly update and align themselves with reality. If every single person was a perfect rationalist then the world would be a utopia, in the sense that extreme poverty would instantly be eliminated. You’re assuming that a perfect rationalist cannot see through the illusion of self and identity, and update its beliefs by understanding neuroscience and evolutionary biology. Complete opposite, they will be seen as philanthropic, altruistic and selfless.
The reason why you think so is because of straw Vulcan, your own attachment to your self and identity, and your own projections onto the world. I have talked about your behavior previously in one of my posts. do you agree? I also gave you suggestions on how to improve, by meditating, for example. http://lesswrong.com/lw/5h9/meditation_insight_and_rationality_part_1_of_3/
In another example, as you and many in society seem to have a fetish for sociopaths, yes you’ll be a sociopath, but not for yourself, for the world. By recognizing your neural activity includes your environment and that they are not separate, that all of us evolved from stardust, and practicing for example meditation or utilizing psychotropic substances, your “Identity” “I” “self” becomes more aligned, and thus what your actions are directed to. That’s called Effective Altruism. (emotions aside, selflessness speaks louder in actions!)
Edit: You changed your post after I replied to you.
Still apply. Doesn’t matter.
If I remember correctly username2 is a shared account, so the person are talking to now might not be whom you have had previously conversed with. Just thought you should know because I don’t want you to mistake the account with a static person.
It’s unlikely that it’s not the same person, or people on average utilize shared accounts to try and share their suffering (by that I mean have a specific attitude) in a negative way. It would be interesting to compare shared accounts with other accounts by for example IBM Watson personality insights. In a large scale analysis.
I would just ban them from the site. I’d rather see a troll spend time creating new accounts and people noticing the sign-up dates. Relevant: Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists
By the way, I was not consciously aware of the user when I wrote my text or the analysis of the user agenda. But afterwards I remembered “oh it’s that user again”.
The username2 account exists for a reason. Anonymous speech does have a role in any free debate, and it is virtuous to protect the ability to speak anonymously.
I agree. Now I’d like the password for username2.
-niceguyanon
The password is a Schelling point, the most likely candidate for an account named ‘username’. Consider it a right of passage to guess… (and don’t post it when you discover it).
You forgot to say that you think that. But for username 2′s point, you had to reiterate that you think.
That’s unfortunate if it is the case if ideas which are outside their echo chamber create such fear, then what I say might be of use in the first place, if we all come together and figure things out :)
It was but it speaks of his underlying ideas and character to even be in the position to do that. I don’t mind it, I enjoy typing walls of texts. What would you want me to respond, if at all?
Yeah, I think so too, but I do think there is a technological barrier in how this forum was setup for the type of problem-solving I am advising for. If we truly want to be Less Wrong, it’s fine with how it is now, but there can definitely be improvements in an effort for the entire species rather than a small subset of it, 2k people.
What do you mean by this? Assuming its a joke, why does it speaks to his character and underlying ideas; why would it, it wasn’t meant for you to take seriously.
Probably not at all.
Because a few words tell a large story when they also decided it was worth their time to write it. I wrote in my post and explained for example what type of viewpoints it implies and that it’s stupid (in the sense inefficient and not aligned with reality).
I will update my probabilities then as I gain more feedback.