I wanted to make a discussion post about this but apparently I need 2 karma points and this forum is too ignorant to give them out. I’ll post here and I guess probably be done with this place since its not even possible for me to attempt to engage in meaningful discussion. I’d also like to make the conjecture that this place cannot be based on rationality with the rule sets that are in place for joining-and I don’t understand why that isn’t obvious.
Anyways, here is what would have been my article for discussion:
“I am not perfectly sure how this site has worked (although I skimmed the “tutorials”) and I am notorious for not understanding systems as easily and quickly as the general public might. At the same time I suspect a place like this is for me, for what I can offer but also for what I can receive (ie I intend on (fully) traversing the various canons).
I also value compression and time in this sense, and so I think I can propose a subject that might serve as an “ideal introduction” (I have an accurate meaning for this phrase I won’t introduce atm).
I’ve read a lot of posts/blogs/papers that are arguments which are founded on a certain difficulties, where the observation and admission of this difficulty leads the author and the reader (and perhaps the originator of the problem/solution outlines) to defer to some form of a (relative to what will follow) long winded solution.
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.
I think maybe at first this will seem like an empty proposal. I think then, and also, some will see it as devilry (which I doubt anyone here thinks exists). And I think I will be accused of many of the fallacies and pitfalls that have already been previously warned about in the canons.
That latter point I think might suggest that I might learn well and fast from this post as interested and helpful people can point me to specific articles and I WILL read them with sincere intent to understand them (so far they are very well written in the sense that I feel I understand them because they are simple enough) and I will ask questions.
But I also think ultimately it will be shown that my proposal and my understanding of it doesn’t really fall to any of these traps, and as I learn the canonical arguments I will be able to show how my proposal properly addresses them.”
I wanted to make a discussion post about this but apparently I need 2 karma points and this forum is too ignorant to give them out
People have come here and said: “Hey, I’ve something interesting to say regarding X, and I need a small amount of karma to post it. Can I have some?” and have been given plenty. A little reflection and a moderate amount of politeness can go a long way.
Yup but that ruins my first post cause I wanted it to be something specific. So what you are effectively saying is I have to make a sh!t post first, and I think that is irrational. I came here to bring value not be filtered from doing so.
It makes sense from the inside of the community. The probability of someone posting something of value as the first post is much lower than that of someone posting spam on the front page. So a very low bar to post on the front page is the best compromise between “discourage spammer” and “discourage poster that has something valuable to say”.
If it filters out Nash’s argument, Ideal Money, then it makes no sense and is completely irrational for it.
Well, since it’s an automated process, it filters anything, be it spam, Nash’ argument or the words of Omega itself. As I said, it’s a compromise. The best we could come up, so far. If you have a better solution, spell it out.
Are you also unwilling to discuss the content, and simply are stuck on my posting methods, writing, and character?
No, mine was just a suggestion for a way that would allow you to lubricate the social friction I think you’re experiencing here. On the other side, I am reading your posts carefully and reply when done thinking about.
Well, since it’s an automated process, it filters anything, be it spam, Nash’ argument or the words of Omega itself. As I said, it’s a compromise. The best we could come up, so far. If you have a better solution, spell it out.
You are defending irrationality. It filters out the one thing it needs to not filter out. A better solution would be to eliminate it.
No, mine was just a suggestion for a way that would allow you to lubricate the social friction I think you’re experiencing here. On the other side, I am reading your posts carefully and reply when done thinking about.
Sigh, I guess we never will address Ideal Money will we. I’ve already spent all day with like 10 posters, that refuse to do anything but attack my character. Not surprising since the subject was insta-mod’d anyways.
Well, as a last hail mary, I just want to say I think you are dumb for purposefully trolling me like this and refusing to address Nash’s proposal. Its John Nash, and he spent his life on this proposal, ya’ll won’t even read it.
There is no intelligence here, just pompous robots avoiding real truth.
Do you know who Nash is? It took 40 years the first time to acknowledge what he did with his equilibrium work. Its been 20 in regard to Ideal Money...
You are defending irrationality. It filters out the one thing it needs to not filter out. A better solution would be to eliminate it.
I wonder what my failure in communicating my idea is in this case.
Let me rephrase my argument in favor of filtering and see if I can get my point across: if we eliminated the filter, the site would be inundated with spam and fake accounts posts. By having a filter we block all this, and people willing to pass a small threshold will not be denied to post their contributions.
Sigh, I guess we never will address Ideal Money will we
In due time, I will.
I’ve already spent all day with like 10 posters, that refuse to do anything but attack my character.
That is unfortunate, but you must be prepared to make these discussions on the lon run. There are people that come here only once a week or only once every three months. A day can be enough to filter out the most visceral reactions, but here discussions can span days, weeks or years.
Its John Nash, and he spent his life on this proposal, ya’ll won’t even read it.
I am reading it right now, and exactly because it’s Nash I’m reading as careful as I can.
But what won’t fly here is insulting. Frustration for not being able to communicate your idea is something that we all felt, after all communicating clearly is hard. But if you let yourself below a certain standard of respect, you will be moderated and possibly even banned. That would allow you to communicate your idea even less.
I wonder what my failure in communicating my idea is in this case. Let me rephrase my argument in favor of filtering and see if I can get my point across: if we eliminated the filter, the site would be inundated with spam and fake accounts posts. By having a filter we block all this, and people willing to pass a small threshold will not be denied to post their contributions.
Let me communicate to you what I am saying. I bring the most important writing ever known to mankind. Who is the mod that moderated Nash? Where is the intelligence in that? Let’s not call that intelligence and try and defend it. Let’s call it an error.
In due time, I will.
Cheers! :)
That is unfortunate, but you must be prepared to make these discussions on the lon run. There are people that come here only once a week or only once every three months. A day can be enough to filter out the most visceral reactions, but here discussions can span days, weeks or years.
Do you think I am not prepared? I have been at this for about 4 years I think. I have writing 100′s maybe thousands of related articles and been on many many forums and sites discussing it and “arguing” with many many people.
I am reading it right now, and exactly because it’s Nash I’m reading as careful as I can.
Ah, sincerity!!!!!!!
But what won’t fly here is insulting. Frustration for not being able to communicate your idea is something that we all felt, after all communicating clearly is hard. But if you let yourself below a certain standard of respect, you will be moderated and possibly even banned. That would allow you to communicate your idea even less.
I have been insulted by nearly every poster that has responded. The mod insulted me, and Nash. I have never been more insulted so quick so much on any other site.
But if you let yourself below a certain standard of respect, you will be moderated and possibly even banned. That would allow you to communicate your idea even less.
Yup ban the messenger and ignore the message. Why would these people remain ignorant to Nash? How did Nash go 20 years without anyone giving his lectures serious thought?
I don’t think I should have done what I did to get my first two karma points. I suspect it degrades the quality of the site at a rate in which rationality can’t inflate it. But I’ll save my reasoning and the discussion of it ftm. I am now able to post my discussion on its own it seems, so I did it.
Your first paragraph venting your frustration at the 2 karma rule was unnecessary, but cool you realized that.
I think this post is fine as an Open Thread or as an introduction post. I don’t see why it is necessary for its own discussion. Plus it seems like you are making an article stating that you will make an article. I don’t think you need to do that. Just come right out and say what you have to say.
No you don’t understand. I have something valuable to bring but I needed to make my INTRO post an independent one and I was stripped of that possibility by the process.
You weren’t “stripped of that possibility”. LW has small barriers to entry here and there; you are expected to participate in other ways and demonstrate your bona fides and non-stupidity before posting articles. Do you think that is unreasonable? Would it be better if all the world’s spammers could come along and post LW articles about their sex-enhancing drugs and their exam-cheating services and so on?
Because I cannot do what was required to make a proper post, which was to not have to make “shit posts” before I make my initial post (which needed to be independent). So the filter, which is trying to foster rational thinking, filtering out the seeds of it.
You have not explained why your post had to be “independent”. Perhaps there are reasons—maybe good ones—why you wanted your first appearance here to be its posting, but I don’t see any reason why it’s better for LW for that to be so.
In any case, “X has a cost” is not a good argument against X; there can be benefits that outweigh the costs. I hope you will not be offended, but I personally am quite happy for you to be slightly inconvenienced if the alternative is having LW deluged with posts from spammers.
I wanted to make a discussion post about this but apparently I need 2 karma points and this forum is too ignorant to give them out. I’ll post here and I guess probably be done with this place since its not even possible for me to attempt to engage in meaningful discussion. I’d also like to make the conjecture that this place cannot be based on rationality with the rule sets that are in place for joining-and I don’t understand why that isn’t obvious.
Anyways, here is what would have been my article for discussion:
“I am not perfectly sure how this site has worked (although I skimmed the “tutorials”) and I am notorious for not understanding systems as easily and quickly as the general public might. At the same time I suspect a place like this is for me, for what I can offer but also for what I can receive (ie I intend on (fully) traversing the various canons).
I also value compression and time in this sense, and so I think I can propose a subject that might serve as an “ideal introduction” (I have an accurate meaning for this phrase I won’t introduce atm).
I’ve read a lot of posts/blogs/papers that are arguments which are founded on a certain difficulties, where the observation and admission of this difficulty leads the author and the reader (and perhaps the originator of the problem/solution outlines) to defer to some form of a (relative to what will follow) long winded solution.
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.
I think maybe at first this will seem like an empty proposal. I think then, and also, some will see it as devilry (which I doubt anyone here thinks exists). And I think I will be accused of many of the fallacies and pitfalls that have already been previously warned about in the canons.
That latter point I think might suggest that I might learn well and fast from this post as interested and helpful people can point me to specific articles and I WILL read them with sincere intent to understand them (so far they are very well written in the sense that I feel I understand them because they are simple enough) and I will ask questions.
But I also think ultimately it will be shown that my proposal and my understanding of it doesn’t really fall to any of these traps, and as I learn the canonical arguments I will be able to show how my proposal properly addresses them.”
People have come here and said: “Hey, I’ve something interesting to say regarding X, and I need a small amount of karma to post it. Can I have some?” and have been given plenty.
A little reflection and a moderate amount of politeness can go a long way.
Yup but that ruins my first post cause I wanted it to be something specific. So what you are effectively saying is I have to make a sh!t post first, and I think that is irrational. I came here to bring value not be filtered from doing so.
Cheers!
It makes sense from the inside of the community.
The probability of someone posting something of value as the first post is much lower than that of someone posting spam on the front page. So a very low bar to post on the front page is the best compromise between “discourage spammer” and “discourage poster that has something valuable to say”.
If it filters out Nash’s argument, Ideal Money, then it makes no sense and is completely irrational for it.
Think about what you are saying, its ridiculous.
Are you also unwilling to discuss the content, and simply are stuck on my posting methods, writing, and character?
Well, since it’s an automated process, it filters anything, be it spam, Nash’ argument or the words of Omega itself. As I said, it’s a compromise. The best we could come up, so far. If you have a better solution, spell it out.
No, mine was just a suggestion for a way that would allow you to lubricate the social friction I think you’re experiencing here. On the other side, I am reading your posts carefully and reply when done thinking about.
You are defending irrationality. It filters out the one thing it needs to not filter out. A better solution would be to eliminate it.
Sigh, I guess we never will address Ideal Money will we. I’ve already spent all day with like 10 posters, that refuse to do anything but attack my character. Not surprising since the subject was insta-mod’d anyways.
Well, as a last hail mary, I just want to say I think you are dumb for purposefully trolling me like this and refusing to address Nash’s proposal. Its John Nash, and he spent his life on this proposal, ya’ll won’t even read it.
There is no intelligence here, just pompous robots avoiding real truth.
Do you know who Nash is? It took 40 years the first time to acknowledge what he did with his equilibrium work. Its been 20 in regard to Ideal Money...
I wonder what my failure in communicating my idea is in this case. Let me rephrase my argument in favor of filtering and see if I can get my point across: if we eliminated the filter, the site would be inundated with spam and fake accounts posts. By having a filter we block all this, and people willing to pass a small threshold will not be denied to post their contributions.
In due time, I will.
That is unfortunate, but you must be prepared to make these discussions on the lon run. There are people that come here only once a week or only once every three months. A day can be enough to filter out the most visceral reactions, but here discussions can span days, weeks or years.
I am reading it right now, and exactly because it’s Nash I’m reading as careful as I can.
But what won’t fly here is insulting. Frustration for not being able to communicate your idea is something that we all felt, after all communicating clearly is hard. But if you let yourself below a certain standard of respect, you will be moderated and possibly even banned. That would allow you to communicate your idea even less.
Let me communicate to you what I am saying. I bring the most important writing ever known to mankind. Who is the mod that moderated Nash? Where is the intelligence in that? Let’s not call that intelligence and try and defend it. Let’s call it an error.
Cheers! :)
Do you think I am not prepared? I have been at this for about 4 years I think. I have writing 100′s maybe thousands of related articles and been on many many forums and sites discussing it and “arguing” with many many people.
Ah, sincerity!!!!!!!
I have been insulted by nearly every poster that has responded. The mod insulted me, and Nash. I have never been more insulted so quick so much on any other site.
Yup ban the messenger and ignore the message. Why would these people remain ignorant to Nash? How did Nash go 20 years without anyone giving his lectures serious thought?
I don’t think I should have done what I did to get my first two karma points. I suspect it degrades the quality of the site at a rate in which rationality can’t inflate it. But I’ll save my reasoning and the discussion of it ftm. I am now able to post my discussion on its own it seems, so I did it.
2x cheers.
Your first paragraph venting your frustration at the 2 karma rule was unnecessary, but cool you realized that.
I think this post is fine as an Open Thread or as an introduction post. I don’t see why it is necessary for its own discussion. Plus it seems like you are making an article stating that you will make an article. I don’t think you need to do that. Just come right out and say what you have to say.
No you don’t understand. I have something valuable to bring but I needed to make my INTRO post an independent one and I was stripped of that possibility by the process.
You weren’t “stripped of that possibility”. LW has small barriers to entry here and there; you are expected to participate in other ways and demonstrate your bona fides and non-stupidity before posting articles. Do you think that is unreasonable? Would it be better if all the world’s spammers could come along and post LW articles about their sex-enhancing drugs and their exam-cheating services and so on?
Yes I think its not reasonable, because it acted counter-productive to the intended use that you are suggesting it was implemented for.
How?
Because I cannot do what was required to make a proper post, which was to not have to make “shit posts” before I make my initial post (which needed to be independent). So the filter, which is trying to foster rational thinking, filtering out the seeds of it.
No one’s requiring you to make “shit posts”.
You have not explained why your post had to be “independent”. Perhaps there are reasons—maybe good ones—why you wanted your first appearance here to be its posting, but I don’t see any reason why it’s better for LW for that to be so.
In any case, “X has a cost” is not a good argument against X; there can be benefits that outweigh the costs. I hope you will not be offended, but I personally am quite happy for you to be slightly inconvenienced if the alternative is having LW deluged with posts from spammers.