CFAR is looking for the correct approach to teaching rationality. InIn claims it has already found it, and will provide it to you for only two easy payments of...
Please avoid arguments by association. It’s an argument-style Dark Arts, which is your skills set as you previously clearly acknowledged. I would like to see where you believe, in specific and concrete ways, we say that we sell rationality for two easy payments. In fact, the vast majority of our content is free—the only paid product is a book I wrote, and we distributed that for free for a while as well, and also an intense online class I am teaching and spending a lot of my personal time on. Thanks!
Also, please point out where InIn claims to have found the correct approach. In my comment below, I specifically discuss how we are looking for new ideas to do things better. Maybe you are aware of something I am not, however, and I would be happy to update my beliefs.
My immediate response is to say “No”, but I will explain why I am inclined to just write “No”:
Because regardless of whether what you wrote is false, spending time denying it grants it validity. Your response to my opening validates it; had you never said a word, everybody would have dismissed me as an asshole. Your inability to not respond to everything cripples your ability to effectively deal with this situation.
I’ll include my response to your other comment here because it’s related:
You’re worried about “Anchoring”, but forget that you’re already anchored here—everybody already has an opinion of you, and I didn’t actually accuse you of any untoward behavior that would cause people to update their opinions. The closest I came was implying that Ella was a sockpuppet, something which I doubt anybody took seriously until you defended her in a typically exaggerated fashion, then spent time in this forum making a show of apologizing to somebody you supposedly know in real life, instead of talking to her there, where it makes more sense. It was obviously a show put on for our benefit.
Now, before you jump in and start complaining about me accusing you of stuff again: I’m teaching you something. Stop to learn it before you respond. If I’m accusing you of something openly, others are thinking it, and not saying a word because they’re too polite. Consider the implications of that. Even if you’re not guilty, the fact that I think you are means you are failing in some substantial way of managing the way you’re interacting with people.
Good point (and I’m upvoting this comment of yours). I appreciate you helping me update on my weakness in not responding to everything. Silence is a hard virtue, and I am a teacher/explainer at heart, which is why I became a professor and started Intentional Insights. It’s very hard for me to not explain, but I will try to restrain myself more in the future.
FYI, I did apologize to Ella (here is her Twitter account) in real life, but I also wanted to demonstrate to her and to others as well that Less Wrong is a forum for interactions about these sorts of issues. I think it’s a valuable signal of how we should act as a community.
I also wanted to demonstrate to her and to others as well that Less Wrong is a forum for interactions about these sorts of issues. I think it’s a valuable signal of how we should act as a community.
The mistake there is that when you put on a show, people notice it, and question why you’re putting on a show. You’re always sending (at least) three signals: The first signal is the one you’re attempting to send. The second signal is how you’re sending it. The third signal is the context of your sending it. If you’re only cognizant of the signal you’re deliberately sending, you’re almost certainly sending the wrong overall signal.
The “How” in this case is, roughly, putting on a show. You’re telling people you’re trying to manipulate them.
The context in this case is, roughly, an accusation. Combined with the manipulation, you’re telling people you consider the accusation serious and potentially dangerous, and are manipulating them to not take it seriously.
I think you’re talking about putting on a show about putting on a show about putting on a show. It’s at the level of meta that I’m struggling to breathe in this high atmosphere. I suggest we wrap up this thread.
Some people could say the same thing about CFAR. So, let’s focus on specific details how these two are different.
CFAR is looking for the correct approach to teaching rationality. InIn claims it has already found it, and will provide it to you for only two easy payments of...
Please avoid arguments by association. It’s an argument-style Dark Arts, which is your skills set as you previously clearly acknowledged. I would like to see where you believe, in specific and concrete ways, we say that we sell rationality for two easy payments. In fact, the vast majority of our content is free—the only paid product is a book I wrote, and we distributed that for free for a while as well, and also an intense online class I am teaching and spending a lot of my personal time on. Thanks!
Also, please point out where InIn claims to have found the correct approach. In my comment below, I specifically discuss how we are looking for new ideas to do things better. Maybe you are aware of something I am not, however, and I would be happy to update my beliefs.
This is glibness, not “Dark Arts”.
Can you please write a full response to my comments, and avoid using hand-waving as a Dark Arts technique. Thanks!
Sighs
My immediate response is to say “No”, but I will explain why I am inclined to just write “No”:
Because regardless of whether what you wrote is false, spending time denying it grants it validity. Your response to my opening validates it; had you never said a word, everybody would have dismissed me as an asshole. Your inability to not respond to everything cripples your ability to effectively deal with this situation.
I’ll include my response to your other comment here because it’s related:
You’re worried about “Anchoring”, but forget that you’re already anchored here—everybody already has an opinion of you, and I didn’t actually accuse you of any untoward behavior that would cause people to update their opinions. The closest I came was implying that Ella was a sockpuppet, something which I doubt anybody took seriously until you defended her in a typically exaggerated fashion, then spent time in this forum making a show of apologizing to somebody you supposedly know in real life, instead of talking to her there, where it makes more sense. It was obviously a show put on for our benefit.
Now, before you jump in and start complaining about me accusing you of stuff again: I’m teaching you something. Stop to learn it before you respond. If I’m accusing you of something openly, others are thinking it, and not saying a word because they’re too polite. Consider the implications of that. Even if you’re not guilty, the fact that I think you are means you are failing in some substantial way of managing the way you’re interacting with people.
Good point (and I’m upvoting this comment of yours). I appreciate you helping me update on my weakness in not responding to everything. Silence is a hard virtue, and I am a teacher/explainer at heart, which is why I became a professor and started Intentional Insights. It’s very hard for me to not explain, but I will try to restrain myself more in the future.
FYI, I did apologize to Ella (here is her Twitter account) in real life, but I also wanted to demonstrate to her and to others as well that Less Wrong is a forum for interactions about these sorts of issues. I think it’s a valuable signal of how we should act as a community.
The mistake there is that when you put on a show, people notice it, and question why you’re putting on a show. You’re always sending (at least) three signals: The first signal is the one you’re attempting to send. The second signal is how you’re sending it. The third signal is the context of your sending it. If you’re only cognizant of the signal you’re deliberately sending, you’re almost certainly sending the wrong overall signal.
The “How” in this case is, roughly, putting on a show. You’re telling people you’re trying to manipulate them.
The context in this case is, roughly, an accusation. Combined with the manipulation, you’re telling people you consider the accusation serious and potentially dangerous, and are manipulating them to not take it seriously.
I think you’re talking about putting on a show about putting on a show about putting on a show. It’s at the level of meta that I’m struggling to breathe in this high atmosphere. I suggest we wrap up this thread.