Yes, a list of Carl’s best arguments against standard positions is going to be of vastly higher quality than anything we would be likely to get from the best contrarians we can find.
(FWIW Vassar, Carl, and Rayhawk (in ascending order of apparent neuroticism) are traditionally most associated with constructing steel men. (Or as I think Vassar put it, “steel men, adamantium men, magnetic monopolium men”, respectively.))
If it’s less signal but also less noise, it might be better overall. (And if we can’t work out how to get more contrarians, this might be a useful suggestion anyway.)
Sarcasm is hard to respond to, because I don’t know what your actual position is other than “not-that”.
Mm, on second reading I think you’re right. “Vastly higher quality than anything we would be likely to get from the best contrarians we can find” comes across to me as having too many superlatives to be meant seriously. But “not-sarcastic” fits my model of lukeprog better.
(I was also influenced by it being at −1 when I replied. There’s probably a lesson in contrarianism to be taken from that...)
“Vastly higher quality than anything we would be likely to get from the best contrarians we can find” comes across to me as having too many superlatives to be meant seriously.
Keep in mind that we’re talking about Carl Shulman. If you know the guy it’s pretty obvious that Lukeprog was dead serious.
Yes, a list of Carl’s best arguments against standard positions is going to be of vastly higher quality than anything we would be likely to get from the best contrarians we can find.
(FWIW Vassar, Carl, and Rayhawk (in ascending order of apparent neuroticism) are traditionally most associated with constructing steel men. (Or as I think Vassar put it, “steel men, adamantium men, magnetic monopolium men”, respectively.))
If it’s less signal but also less noise, it might be better overall. (And if we can’t work out how to get more contrarians, this might be a useful suggestion anyway.)
Sarcasm is hard to respond to, because I don’t know what your actual position is other than “not-that”.
I seriously doubt that was sarcasm.
Mm, on second reading I think you’re right. “Vastly higher quality than anything we would be likely to get from the best contrarians we can find” comes across to me as having too many superlatives to be meant seriously. But “not-sarcastic” fits my model of lukeprog better.
(I was also influenced by it being at −1 when I replied. There’s probably a lesson in contrarianism to be taken from that...)
Keep in mind that we’re talking about Carl Shulman. If you know the guy it’s pretty obvious that Lukeprog was dead serious.