This requires a model of the poster that not everyone reading comments will have. That can be solved by downvoting such posters to indicate their untrustworthiness.
But as I said humans are not perfect Bayesian reasoners and are not good at adjusting for unreliable speakers. We almost always either adjust too far and reverse stupidity or don’t discount enough and let cherry picked sources or skewed interpretations sneak into our brains. We’ll update without even noticing.
This seems like a selective application of a universal objection. “We almost always either adjust too far and reverse stupidity or don’t discount enough,” makes your reason technically not a universal objection, just an objection to learning anything from badly biased people, but this might be a confabulation added to the universal “humans are not perfect Bayesian reasoners”.
There is a difference between suboptimal updating and updating in ways that don’t correlate with the truth. My point is that badly biased posters may cause us to do the latter. But this is really tangential to the main thrust of my argument. Even (if) you can learn things (from) the occasional source Sam cites that seems very unlikely to make up for the rest of his noise. Well-Kept Gardens Die by Pacifism.
Even you can learn things about the occasional source Sam cites
To be read: Even if you can learn about things from the occasional source Sam cites?
WKGDbP would be squarely on point if I had implied there was anything bad about condemning, downvoting unto hiddenness, censoring, banning, or the like, that Sam had net negative value, and that the evils of censorship were what was preventing me from harsher criticism of his comments.
As it is only the first few paragraphs of that are applicable. I concede I may be succumbing to the bias of valuing known, tangible gains over unknown, intangible but probably greater losses. I think Sam has net positive value here, but your argument he is deterring more valuable people from joining is important.
I think the most important landmark in the failure scenario described is “then another fool joins, and the two fools begin talking to each other...”
To be read: Even if you can learn about things from the occasional source Sam cites?
Correct. And edited.
As it is only the first few paragraphs of that are applicable. I concede I may be succumbing to the bias of valuing known, tangible gains over unknown, intangible but probably greater losses. I think Sam has net positive value here, but your argument he is deterring more valuable people from joining is important.
I’m not sure you’re thinking about your information diet economically. Any minute you spend reading sam0345 or an indignant but obvious reply to him is a minute you could have spent reading something better. What make Less Wrong a special place is the ratio of good comments to bad not the total amount of insight gained by reading every single comment.
This requires a model of the poster that not everyone reading comments will have. That can be solved by downvoting such posters to indicate their untrustworthiness.
But as I said humans are not perfect Bayesian reasoners and are not good at adjusting for unreliable speakers. We almost always either adjust too far and reverse stupidity or don’t discount enough and let cherry picked sources or skewed interpretations sneak into our brains. We’ll update without even noticing.
This seems like a selective application of a universal objection. “We almost always either adjust too far and reverse stupidity or don’t discount enough,” makes your reason technically not a universal objection, just an objection to learning anything from badly biased people, but this might be a confabulation added to the universal “humans are not perfect Bayesian reasoners”.
There is a difference between suboptimal updating and updating in ways that don’t correlate with the truth. My point is that badly biased posters may cause us to do the latter. But this is really tangential to the main thrust of my argument. Even (if) you can learn things (from) the occasional source Sam cites that seems very unlikely to make up for the rest of his noise. Well-Kept Gardens Die by Pacifism.
To be read: Even if you can learn about things from the occasional source Sam cites?
WKGDbP would be squarely on point if I had implied there was anything bad about condemning, downvoting unto hiddenness, censoring, banning, or the like, that Sam had net negative value, and that the evils of censorship were what was preventing me from harsher criticism of his comments.
As it is only the first few paragraphs of that are applicable. I concede I may be succumbing to the bias of valuing known, tangible gains over unknown, intangible but probably greater losses. I think Sam has net positive value here, but your argument he is deterring more valuable people from joining is important.
I think the most important landmark in the failure scenario described is “then another fool joins, and the two fools begin talking to each other...”
That’s where I draw the line, personally.
Correct. And edited.
I’m not sure you’re thinking about your information diet economically. Any minute you spend reading sam0345 or an indignant but obvious reply to him is a minute you could have spent reading something better. What make Less Wrong a special place is the ratio of good comments to bad not the total amount of insight gained by reading every single comment.