I want to note that Azathoth123, the other name for Eugene_Neir previously negatively engaged with Intentional Insights, and that my karma went from 1009 to 838 after VoiceOfRa began criticizing me several days ago.
Maybe if you spent less time on Ra, and more time improving your content; you wouldn’t be having this problem. I am sure that Ra would thank you for it too.
This is the internet; haters will exist. if his reasons are valid or not, you need to be better than this. Especially given your attempt at having a status holding position atop a rationality organisation.
(words redacted, to the effect of—your post and the motivations behind it is an example of the cause of people finding your actions disagreeable)
I want you to write a list to yourself of “most important things that Gleb has to do today”. Then order it by significance—if “complain about Ra” is on that list; keep going. If not—you have a list of things to do.
While I agree that, tactically speaking, it would be better for Gleb to remain above the fray, I can’t help but notice that you just called him a “spider-in-a-human-suit”. What the fuck?
I am not in charge of the wiki—my saying that I like a particular version (and I still like that version better) is not the same thing as my approving it.
Also, “caricature of rationality” strikes me as both harsh and false. I hadn’t gotten it into words before, but I’m concerned that you’re not teaching rationality at all, just conveying the idea that “rationality” is an applause light. Do you have methods for checking on what you’re actually teaching?
NancyLebovitz, this is a very important question! Yup, we do have methods of checking in on what we are teaching.
For example, let’s take our meaning and purpose content, which is essentially about teaching people to be oriented toward the long term and achieving their long-term goals. We have an app that has a psychometric test to measure people’s level of meaning and purpose prior to engaging with our content, and then after they engage with our content, including continuing follow-up going forward. The continuing follow-up is meant to address the issue of attention bias and Hawthorne effect, namely to test whether people just got an immediate boost or if there a long-term benefit to people engaging with our content.
We are developing similar apps for other types of content, such as an app for planning fallacy.
We also intend to run randomized control studies on our content’s impact, as described in our theory of change. We have written up proposals for those studies, and are currently trying to get funding for these studies.
That’s the link to the sign-up page for the app. As you can see from the footer, that information is gathered for the purpose of doing demographic analysis as part of our data analysis.
If you want to know the scientific literature on meaning and purpose, there are plenty of sources available. Here’s a good overview, and you can follow the footnotes to learn more.
As I stated earlier, this app uses a psychometric test. It uses a 1-10 Likert scale and a series of questions drawn from scientific literature measuring meaning. The test measures answers on questions, as do other psychometric tests of states of mind such as depression or happiness. In other words, there is no unit measure of “meaning” just as there is no unit measure of “depression” or “happiness.” I guess you could try to measure it in terms of Shannons if you really wanted, but that’s not what the scholarly literature uses for these types of exams.
If you assign a numeric value to something you call “meaning”, there must be a unit measure.
For example, consider IQ points. The unit measure (one IQ point) is 1⁄15 of the standard deviation of the distribution of IQ scores (which are basically normalised ranks) in white populations. We can argue what it corresponds to in the underlying reality, but at least it is well-defined.
The unit measure, however, may be entirely defined by the scale in question. Gleb could say “my unit measure is 1⁄9 of the full range of possible answers on my Meaning Measuring Scale”. That would be pretty useless, but so is “my unit measure is 1⁄15 of one standard deviation on my Cleverness Measuring Scale”.
Perhaps it’s better to reference scores to standard deviation rather than the full possible range—I guess it depends on the particular case. The other advantage IQ has is that there are now lots of IQ tests and they tend to get somewhat correlated results (suggesting that maybe they’re measuring something real) that also correlate with other interesting things (suggesting that maybe the real thing they’re measuring is useful) and they get used quite a lot (so that if you quote an IQ score there’s a good chance that the people you’re addressing will understand roughly what you mean).
Those are all genuine (or at least possibly-genuine) ways in which IQ scores are more useful than Gleb Meaningfulness Metric scores. But I don’t see that IQ is any better off than Gleb Meaningfulness Metric in terms of unit-measure-having. One IQ point doesn’t correspond to a fixed increment in thinking speed or memory capacity or ability to solve any particular kind of problem, or anything like that; it’s just a certain fraction of how much variation there is in one kind of brainpower score. One Gleb Meaningfulness Metric point, likewise, is just a certain fraction of how much variation is possible in one kind of feeling-like-your-life-has-meaning score.
Perhaps it’s better to reference scores to standard deviation rather than the full possible range—I guess it depends on the particular case.
Yep, that highly depends on the shape of the distribution.
One Gleb Meaningfulness Metric point, likewise, is just a certain fraction of how much variation is possible
Well, we (or at least I) haven’t seen Gleb’s Meaninfulness Metric, so I have no idea if it’s defined via population standard deviation like IQ. It may or it may be. I brought up IQ as an example of a unit which does not directly correspond to, say, thinking speed or working memory capacity—it’s entangled with the test itself, but it does make the numbers interpretable.
This is a nicety; while appreciated it looks like you are trying to suck up to Nancy.
(taking into account what Lumifier said about the app) in your description;
We also intend to run randomized control studies on our content’s impact, as described in our theory of change. We have written up proposals for those studies, and are currently trying to get funding for these studies.
Is the only thing you said are doing to be checking on what you’re actually teaching. And it’s something that has not happened yet. (granted these things take time). I read the entire post as; “nothing yet, but we want to—in these ways...”.
randomized control studies on our content’s impact
depending on the method (if done with web content) could be described as A/B split testing. Which is standard these days for internet behaviour of groups spreading clickbait, not an accountable test.
I would suggest not taking Lumifer’s description of his initial impression of the sign-up page as indicative of the app itself. I think there’s sufficient evidence of Lumifer being not unbiased in describing Intentional Insights content. So consider checking out the app itself.
Here are the study proposals themselves, which you can evaluate yourself for whether they are A/B split testing: 1, 2.
EDIT Forgot to mention, my comment on the nature of NancyLebovitz’s question had to do with my own desire to signal that this is a very important question to me, not give praise.
It could be you are actually asking why did anyone change the “approved” version. The answer is that there ain’t no such thing as “approved” versions—this is a wiki, open to edits. No one needs to ask for permission to change the page.
Nope, Elo’s motivations are not obvious to me. I don’t want to suffer from the typical mind fallacy here, so I used the first virtue of curiosity to get more information.
So let’s try the obvious default thing: Elo thinks that the old version does not reflect the character of InIn properly and changed the page to make it—from her point of view—better / more accurate. Any particular reason you find the obvious motivation unsatisfying?
I don’t want to suffer from the typical mind fallacy here, so I used the first virtue of curiosity to get more information.
Really really sounds like you are using these things to imply, “I am more rational than the others on this forum”, compliments to @Lumifier for not taking it that way.
“Elo’s motivations are not obvious to me. I am asking because I was curious about why he did this”
Would be a better way to say the same thing, without saying “I used the virtue and mentioned a fallacy (that’s all about what rationality is about right?), reward me with internet gold”.
Was the phrasing used, instead of (“you are...”). To try to point out what it sounds like he is saying… (probably could have said—“to me it sounds like...”, but that should be a given—I am posting the post...)
Ugliest or not; it’s an interpretation that I chose to share. I also tried to improve the statement to make it less “ugly”.
I don’t know—should I not do that at all?
Can you help with what it “sounds like” I am doing? (keen to learn and change)
I don’t oppose drawing interpretations, but the whole InIn discussion has been tainted by opponents attacking each other’s motivations for what they said instead of the content of what they said.
in light of that: “to me it sounds like...” is probably more appropriate.
My state is that Gleb is trying to do good things—i.e. raise the sanity waterline (as a goal).
As yet he has made a lot of noise and not shown success in the process; or produced content worthy of respect. It remains to be seen if he:
improves;
continues to further offend seasoned members (through various methods i.e. weak content); or
quits.
Given those seem like the options; I would rather 1 then 3 then 2.
I expect from glebs perspective it looks like:
invest more effort into the content to the point where it seems not worth it
fight the haters and win, then keep doing more of what has happened.
give up on a serious dream to improve the world.
where his preference order is 2, 1, 3.
I hope we can meet in the middle; and given that “fight the haters and win on the internet” is a statement of comedy itself, I am keen to see the content improve.
I am not sure there is agreement about the direction of improvement.
Gleb has posted how he finds it difficult to write sleazy scummy content, but overpowers his reluctance and through great personal sacrifice does write it. I would expect that “improvement” for him means more concentrated snake oil or, perhaps, less personal discomfort with producing it.
I don’t think this is what Elo would consider “improvement”.
Gleb has posted how he finds it difficult to write sleazy scummy content, but overpowers his reluctance and through great personal sacrifice does write it. I would expect that “improvement” for him means more concentrated snake oil or, perhaps, less personal discomfort with producing it.
I don’t think it’s okay to put those words (“sleazy scummy concentrated snake oil”) in someone else’s mouth, unless it is part of an actual quote.
I am not quoting Gleb, I’m rephrasing his comment in my own words and from my own point of view. I think this is his original comment, but he repeated this in other places as well.
Gleb described having had to overpower reluctance to write in the style that publications like Lifehacker want, expressed some reservations about that style in morally-neutral language, and gave reasons for using it anyways. Separately, you and others (but not Gleb) described that style as sleazy and scummy. Mix these two things together and discard the attributions, and you’ve created the impression that Gleb thinks of the style as sleazy and scummy, and writes in it anyways. That would reflect negatively on his character if it were true, but it isn’t. Having to use an actual quote would have made this mistake impossible.
I wasn’t trying for any gotchas, my point was—and remains—that in this case the word “improvement” is likely to be understood differently by different people.
I am not passing any moral judgments or making insinuations about anyone’s character.
By the way, if you’re aiming for accuracy, the verb Gleb used was “cringe”. You chose to render it as “reluctance” which, I think, also changes the flavour albeit in another direction. It’s up to you to decide whether cringing and still writing “would reflect negatively on his character” :-P
While I agree that Gleb would do better to work on his content than to quarrel with Ra, I’m not sure Ra has thanked anyone here for anything. I would be glad to be proven wrong.
I am engaging in Tell Culture here, providing useful information for the community. Please note that I did not complain to the admin when this mass downvoting took place. I did not bring this out on the open thread, although I could have. However, since this is now a topic of conversation, I am bringing this information out for consideration for the community.
I try to generally orient toward being open and transparent about my activities and motives. I do not feel it appropriate for me to withhold information that the community mind find useful. This is why I chose to share about it. You might find my Tell Culture approach inappropriate here, but I stand by my choices.
Notice also I did not choose to complain about the unedited version of your post, this was something brought up by another Less Wronger below.
Hiding behind the label “Tell culture”—in this case can also be described as selectively sharing things that forward your interests. Which is what I took it as. Which is wasting your time; Ra’s time; Jim’s time; My time; and anyone else’s time.
Generally orient toward being open and transparent about my activities and motives.
being open about activities is fine; but different to being too loud; and different to polluting the rationality space with too many posts by you.
withhold information that the community mind find useful.
Selective sharing for information that benefits you again. This is not tell culture. Tell culture is private messaging the admin, not publicly slinging accusations like (as I said before: (To be extra clear) you are acting like a child.)
being open about motives is different to being open about activities. The act of saying you are open about motives and then acting as you have here (“I want to note that Azathoth123, the other name for Eugene_Neir previously negatively engaged with Intentional Insights, and that my karma went from 1009 to 838 after VoiceOfRa began criticizing me several days ago.”) and here (“lease note that I did not complain to the admin when this mass downvoting took place. I did not bring this out on the open thread, although I could have.”); really is again an indication of what is trying to be said to you.
Notice also I did not choose to complain about the unedited version of your post, this was something brought up by another Less Wronger below.
This offends me. Are you expecting a medal for it? You successfully did the neutral action. complaining about it again. not progress.
In the interests of:
being open and transparent about my activities
as you said.
I have one single request (as I stated before):
write a list to yourself of “most important things that I have to do today”
Since you are interested in being open about your activities; please posts that list.
To be clear: If you do anything other than the simple task of being open about your activities (by making a list) right here and now you would be betraying your interests by demonstrating that you are not being open about your actions.
I’m not sure that what Gleb wrote is a good example of tell culture. However, karma anomalies (especially negative karma anomalies) is one of the things I need to hear about. I don’t as yet have a strong opinion about whether they should be mentioned publicly or messaged to me, though I’ll note that I’m more likely to see personal messages.
In general, I’ve come to believe that if your mind goes to a single negative motivation for an action you don’t like, you’re probably at least missing some nuance, may just plain be wrong about the motivation, and could be doing some inappropriate obsessing.
To be clear: If you do anything other than the simple task of being open about your activities (by making a list) right here and now you would be betraying your interests by demonstrating that you are not being open about your actions.
I am comprehensively squicked by this, though not at the potential ban level. I’m not sure whether you’ve made an inappropriate demand for rigor, but it does seem like an invented and intrusive standard. You are not in charge of Gleb and you are not in charge of Tell culture.
Actually, by making a list I would be indicating my agreement with your statements. I do not agree with your statements.
You presume to read my mind when you ascribe motivations to me. Please provide evidence when you make claims about me “hiding behind” the label of Tell Culture. What evidence do you have? You already acknowledged you are not a neutral observer, and are interpreting my actions through a negative lens. I encourage you to consider whether it’s possible that you are reading my actions excessively negatively, and try to read my previous statement through a steel man lens. Thanks!
.1. G: Please provide evidence when you make claims about me “hiding behind” the label of Tell Culture.
.2. As I stated in the post above—I explicitly talk about this action when I described you as (“”hiding behind” the label of Tell Culture”):
.3. E: selectively sharing things that forward your interests.
.4. example (stated again):
.5. G: I want to note that Azathoth123, the other name for Eugene_Neir previously negatively engaged with Intentional Insights, and that my karma went from 1009 to 838 after VoiceOfRa began criticizing me several days ago.
.6. G: You presume to read my mind when you ascribe motivations to me.
.7. no, I read your words. When you say:
.8. G: Generally orient toward being open and transparent about my activities and motives.
.9. And now have responded with not being able or willing to:
.10. E: write a list to yourself of “most important things that I have to do today”
.11. G: You already acknowledged
.12. Yes, I directly quoted OscarWilde in his descriptions of “spider-in-a-human-suit”, then on being notified that it was uncalled for, I modified the original post with words to a similar effect. I know exactly what I did, and what I said.
.13. You then said:
.14. G: you are not a neutral observer
.15. yes. As I said (and edited the original post);
.16. E: I agree; it was uncalled for. This war appears to be sucking me into the fray.
.17. You then said:
.18. G: Notice also I did not choose to complain about the unedited version of your post, this was something brought up by another Less Wronger below.
.19. To which I took offence (and outlined in my next post; and again) here:
.20. E: This offends me. Are you expecting a medal for it? You successfully did the neutral action. complaining about it again. not progress.
.21. G: and are interpreting my actions through a negative lens.
.22. I am laying out in this post the nature of my interpretation of everything you have said. This should clear everything up; and has been a monumental waste of time.
.23. G: try to read my previous statement through a steel man lens.
.24. This is offensive and not relevant. you are avoiding doing the thing you said you would do, (“Generally orient toward being open and transparent about my activities and motives.”) by attacking my character.
.25. each point is now numbered so that I and you can quote the number in future responses and stop quoting the same words.
I’m actually not interested in further continuing the discussion, as there is an effort made at reading minds and motivations. I think there’s way too much danger of typical mind fallacy and illusion of transparency from both sides, and I don’t want to make statements that I would later regret. So I’m tapping out.
why? This post is not a productive thing.
This comment puts me in the “I don’t care who started it” (http://lesswrong.com/lw/yp/pretending_to_be_wise/) mood. As in - (To be extra clear) you are acting like a child.
Maybe if you spent less time on Ra, and more time improving your content; you wouldn’t be having this problem. I am sure that Ra would thank you for it too.
This is the internet; haters will exist. if his reasons are valid or not, you need to be better than this. Especially given your attempt at having a status holding position atop a rationality organisation.
(words redacted, to the effect of—your post and the motivations behind it is an example of the cause of people finding your actions disagreeable)
I want you to write a list to yourself of “most important things that Gleb has to do today”. Then order it by significance—if “complain about Ra” is on that list; keep going. If not—you have a list of things to do.
While I agree that, tactically speaking, it would be better for Gleb to remain above the fray, I can’t help but notice that you just called him a “spider-in-a-human-suit”. What the fuck?
edited. I agree; it was uncalled for. This war appears to be sucking me into the fray.
Elo, I’m confused by why you chose to rewrite the wiki page after jimrandomh rewrote it and NancyLebovitz explicitly approved his rewrite. Can you please explain your motivations?
EDIT Edited for a typo
I am not in charge of the wiki—my saying that I like a particular version (and I still like that version better) is not the same thing as my approving it.
Also, “caricature of rationality” strikes me as both harsh and false. I hadn’t gotten it into words before, but I’m concerned that you’re not teaching rationality at all, just conveying the idea that “rationality” is an applause light. Do you have methods for checking on what you’re actually teaching?
NancyLebovitz, this is a very important question! Yup, we do have methods of checking in on what we are teaching.
For example, let’s take our meaning and purpose content, which is essentially about teaching people to be oriented toward the long term and achieving their long-term goals. We have an app that has a psychometric test to measure people’s level of meaning and purpose prior to engaging with our content, and then after they engage with our content, including continuing follow-up going forward. The continuing follow-up is meant to address the issue of attention bias and Hawthorne effect, namely to test whether people just got an immediate boost or if there a long-term benefit to people engaging with our content.
We are developing similar apps for other types of content, such as an app for planning fallacy.
We also intend to run randomized control studies on our content’s impact, as described in our theory of change. We have written up proposals for those studies, and are currently trying to get funding for these studies.
That’s not a link to an app, that’s a link to a sign-up sheet which wants to know my family income. Really?
Besides that, the idea of measuring the “level of meaning” implies that there is a unit of meaning. What might that be?
That’s the link to the sign-up page for the app. As you can see from the footer, that information is gathered for the purpose of doing demographic analysis as part of our data analysis.
If you want to know the scientific literature on meaning and purpose, there are plenty of sources available. Here’s a good overview, and you can follow the footnotes to learn more.
I am not asking for psychological literature on meaning. I am asking what your app is using as a unit of meaning.
As I stated earlier, this app uses a psychometric test. It uses a 1-10 Likert scale and a series of questions drawn from scientific literature measuring meaning. The test measures answers on questions, as do other psychometric tests of states of mind such as depression or happiness. In other words, there is no unit measure of “meaning” just as there is no unit measure of “depression” or “happiness.” I guess you could try to measure it in terms of Shannons if you really wanted, but that’s not what the scholarly literature uses for these types of exams.
If you assign a numeric value to something you call “meaning”, there must be a unit measure.
For example, consider IQ points. The unit measure (one IQ point) is 1⁄15 of the standard deviation of the distribution of IQ scores (which are basically normalised ranks) in white populations. We can argue what it corresponds to in the underlying reality, but at least it is well-defined.
The unit measure, however, may be entirely defined by the scale in question. Gleb could say “my unit measure is 1⁄9 of the full range of possible answers on my Meaning Measuring Scale”. That would be pretty useless, but so is “my unit measure is 1⁄15 of one standard deviation on my Cleverness Measuring Scale”.
Perhaps it’s better to reference scores to standard deviation rather than the full possible range—I guess it depends on the particular case. The other advantage IQ has is that there are now lots of IQ tests and they tend to get somewhat correlated results (suggesting that maybe they’re measuring something real) that also correlate with other interesting things (suggesting that maybe the real thing they’re measuring is useful) and they get used quite a lot (so that if you quote an IQ score there’s a good chance that the people you’re addressing will understand roughly what you mean).
Those are all genuine (or at least possibly-genuine) ways in which IQ scores are more useful than Gleb Meaningfulness Metric scores. But I don’t see that IQ is any better off than Gleb Meaningfulness Metric in terms of unit-measure-having. One IQ point doesn’t correspond to a fixed increment in thinking speed or memory capacity or ability to solve any particular kind of problem, or anything like that; it’s just a certain fraction of how much variation there is in one kind of brainpower score. One Gleb Meaningfulness Metric point, likewise, is just a certain fraction of how much variation is possible in one kind of feeling-like-your-life-has-meaning score.
Yep, that highly depends on the shape of the distribution.
Well, we (or at least I) haven’t seen Gleb’s Meaninfulness Metric, so I have no idea if it’s defined via population standard deviation like IQ. It may or it may be. I brought up IQ as an example of a unit which does not directly correspond to, say, thinking speed or working memory capacity—it’s entangled with the test itself, but it does make the numbers interpretable.
This is a nicety; while appreciated it looks like you are trying to suck up to Nancy.
(taking into account what Lumifier said about the app) in your description;
Is the only thing you said are doing to be checking on what you’re actually teaching. And it’s something that has not happened yet. (granted these things take time). I read the entire post as; “nothing yet, but we want to—in these ways...”.
depending on the method (if done with web content) could be described as A/B split testing. Which is standard these days for internet behaviour of groups spreading clickbait, not an accountable test.
I would suggest not taking Lumifer’s description of his initial impression of the sign-up page as indicative of the app itself. I think there’s sufficient evidence of Lumifer being not unbiased in describing Intentional Insights content. So consider checking out the app itself.
Here are the study proposals themselves, which you can evaluate yourself for whether they are A/B split testing: 1, 2.
EDIT Forgot to mention, my comment on the nature of NancyLebovitz’s question had to do with my own desire to signal that this is a very important question to me, not give praise.
Aren’t Elo’s motivations obvious?
It could be you are actually asking why did anyone change the “approved” version. The answer is that there ain’t no such thing as “approved” versions—this is a wiki, open to edits. No one needs to ask for permission to change the page.
Nope, Elo’s motivations are not obvious to me. I don’t want to suffer from the typical mind fallacy here, so I used the first virtue of curiosity to get more information.
So let’s try the obvious default thing: Elo thinks that the old version does not reflect the character of InIn properly and changed the page to make it—from her point of view—better / more accurate. Any particular reason you find the obvious motivation unsatisfying?
Really really sounds like you are using these things to imply, “I am more rational than the others on this forum”, compliments to @Lumifier for not taking it that way.
“Elo’s motivations are not obvious to me. I am asking because I was curious about why he did this”
Would be a better way to say the same thing, without saying “I used the virtue and mentioned a fallacy (that’s all about what rationality is about right?), reward me with internet gold”.
Why assume the ugliest possible interpretation of his meaning?
I would call this an example of tell culture.
Was the phrasing used, instead of (“you are...”). To try to point out what it sounds like he is saying… (probably could have said—“to me it sounds like...”, but that should be a given—I am posting the post...)
Ugliest or not; it’s an interpretation that I chose to share. I also tried to improve the statement to make it less “ugly”.
I don’t know—should I not do that at all?
Can you help with what it “sounds like” I am doing? (keen to learn and change)
I don’t oppose drawing interpretations, but the whole InIn discussion has been tainted by opponents attacking each other’s motivations for what they said instead of the content of what they said.
True.
in light of that: “to me it sounds like...” is probably more appropriate.
My state is that Gleb is trying to do good things—i.e. raise the sanity waterline (as a goal).
As yet he has made a lot of noise and not shown success in the process; or produced content worthy of respect. It remains to be seen if he:
improves;
continues to further offend seasoned members (through various methods i.e. weak content); or
quits.
Given those seem like the options; I would rather 1 then 3 then 2.
I expect from glebs perspective it looks like:
invest more effort into the content to the point where it seems not worth it
fight the haters and win, then keep doing more of what has happened.
give up on a serious dream to improve the world.
where his preference order is 2, 1, 3.
I hope we can meet in the middle; and given that “fight the haters and win on the internet” is a statement of comedy itself, I am keen to see the content improve.
I am not sure there is agreement about the direction of improvement.
Gleb has posted how he finds it difficult to write sleazy scummy content, but overpowers his reluctance and through great personal sacrifice does write it. I would expect that “improvement” for him means more concentrated snake oil or, perhaps, less personal discomfort with producing it.
I don’t think this is what Elo would consider “improvement”.
I don’t think it’s okay to put those words (“sleazy scummy concentrated snake oil”) in someone else’s mouth, unless it is part of an actual quote.
I am not quoting Gleb, I’m rephrasing his comment in my own words and from my own point of view. I think this is his original comment, but he repeated this in other places as well.
Gleb described having had to overpower reluctance to write in the style that publications like Lifehacker want, expressed some reservations about that style in morally-neutral language, and gave reasons for using it anyways. Separately, you and others (but not Gleb) described that style as sleazy and scummy. Mix these two things together and discard the attributions, and you’ve created the impression that Gleb thinks of the style as sleazy and scummy, and writes in it anyways. That would reflect negatively on his character if it were true, but it isn’t. Having to use an actual quote would have made this mistake impossible.
I wasn’t trying for any gotchas, my point was—and remains—that in this case the word “improvement” is likely to be understood differently by different people.
I am not passing any moral judgments or making insinuations about anyone’s character.
By the way, if you’re aiming for accuracy, the verb Gleb used was “cringe”. You chose to render it as “reluctance” which, I think, also changes the flavour albeit in another direction. It’s up to you to decide whether cringing and still writing “would reflect negatively on his character” :-P
that sounds like 2 not 1. yes. Now what (should be done)?
Information can be found in the talk page:
https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Talk:Intentional_Insights
And thank you @Lumifier for being reasonable.
Apologies OrphanWilde was the first to comment that here:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/mz4/link_lifehack_article_promoting_lesswrong/cw8n
not VoicesOfRa
While I agree that Gleb would do better to work on his content than to quarrel with Ra, I’m not sure Ra has thanked anyone here for anything. I would be glad to be proven wrong.
I am engaging in Tell Culture here, providing useful information for the community. Please note that I did not complain to the admin when this mass downvoting took place. I did not bring this out on the open thread, although I could have. However, since this is now a topic of conversation, I am bringing this information out for consideration for the community.
I try to generally orient toward being open and transparent about my activities and motives. I do not feel it appropriate for me to withhold information that the community mind find useful. This is why I chose to share about it. You might find my Tell Culture approach inappropriate here, but I stand by my choices.
Notice also I did not choose to complain about the unedited version of your post, this was something brought up by another Less Wronger below.
Hiding behind the label “Tell culture”—in this case can also be described as selectively sharing things that forward your interests. Which is what I took it as. Which is wasting your time; Ra’s time; Jim’s time; My time; and anyone else’s time.
being open about activities is fine; but different to being too loud; and different to polluting the rationality space with too many posts by you.
Selective sharing for information that benefits you again. This is not tell culture. Tell culture is private messaging the admin, not publicly slinging accusations like (as I said before: (To be extra clear) you are acting like a child.)
being open about motives is different to being open about activities. The act of saying you are open about motives and then acting as you have here (“I want to note that Azathoth123, the other name for Eugene_Neir previously negatively engaged with Intentional Insights, and that my karma went from 1009 to 838 after VoiceOfRa began criticizing me several days ago.”) and here (“lease note that I did not complain to the admin when this mass downvoting took place. I did not bring this out on the open thread, although I could have.”); really is again an indication of what is trying to be said to you.
This offends me. Are you expecting a medal for it? You successfully did the neutral action. complaining about it again. not progress.
In the interests of:
as you said.
I have one single request (as I stated before):
Since you are interested in being open about your activities; please posts that list.
To be clear: If you do anything other than the simple task of being open about your activities (by making a list) right here and now you would be betraying your interests by demonstrating that you are not being open about your actions.
I’m not sure that what Gleb wrote is a good example of tell culture. However, karma anomalies (especially negative karma anomalies) is one of the things I need to hear about. I don’t as yet have a strong opinion about whether they should be mentioned publicly or messaged to me, though I’ll note that I’m more likely to see personal messages.
In general, I’ve come to believe that if your mind goes to a single negative motivation for an action you don’t like, you’re probably at least missing some nuance, may just plain be wrong about the motivation, and could be doing some inappropriate obsessing.
I am comprehensively squicked by this, though not at the potential ban level. I’m not sure whether you’ve made an inappropriate demand for rigor, but it does seem like an invented and intrusive standard. You are not in charge of Gleb and you are not in charge of Tell culture.
Actually, by making a list I would be indicating my agreement with your statements. I do not agree with your statements.
You presume to read my mind when you ascribe motivations to me. Please provide evidence when you make claims about me “hiding behind” the label of Tell Culture. What evidence do you have? You already acknowledged you are not a neutral observer, and are interpreting my actions through a negative lens. I encourage you to consider whether it’s possible that you are reading my actions excessively negatively, and try to read my previous statement through a steel man lens. Thanks!
.2. As I stated in the post above—I explicitly talk about this action when I described you as (“”hiding behind” the label of Tell Culture”):
.4. example (stated again):
.7. no, I read your words. When you say:
.9. And now have responded with not being able or willing to:
.12. Yes, I directly quoted OscarWilde in his descriptions of “spider-in-a-human-suit”, then on being notified that it was uncalled for, I modified the original post with words to a similar effect. I know exactly what I did, and what I said.
.13. You then said:
.15. yes. As I said (and edited the original post);
.17. You then said:
.19. To which I took offence (and outlined in my next post; and again) here:
.22. I am laying out in this post the nature of my interpretation of everything you have said. This should clear everything up; and has been a monumental waste of time.
.24. This is offensive and not relevant. you are avoiding doing the thing you said you would do, (“Generally orient toward being open and transparent about my activities and motives.”) by attacking my character.
.25. each point is now numbered so that I and you can quote the number in future responses and stop quoting the same words.
I’m actually not interested in further continuing the discussion, as there is an effort made at reading minds and motivations. I think there’s way too much danger of typical mind fallacy and illusion of transparency from both sides, and I don’t want to make statements that I would later regret. So I’m tapping out.