I want to upvote this for the link to further discussion, but I also want to downvote it for the passive-aggressive jab at LW users.
I’m afraid the ‘troll prodrome’ behaviour you observe more than cancels out the usefulness of the link (and, for that matter, it prevented me from even considering the link as having positive expected value.)
Thank you.… but could you clarify your reasoning as to why it would be a “passive-aggressive jab at LW users”, when it was perhaps better described as a moderate response to the fact that EY entered the discussion with an openly hostile ad hominem comment that was clearly designed to encourage downvoting? (I assume you did see the insult...?)
Before the ad hominem: minimal downvoting. After: a torrent of downvoting.
And this has happened repeatedly. (By which I mean, the unexpected appearance of an LW heavyweight, who says nothing positive, but only launches a personal insult at me, followed by a sudden change in downvoting patterns).
The responses to your comments are predictable and appropriate. You are indicating through word and action that you are unable or unwilling to learn from the consequences of your behaviour. Your contributions add little positive to the site and you will continue to be received negatively for as long as you continue to needlessly antagonise. Please seek an alternate avenue for discussion which is more receptive to your style of interaction.
Peterdjones: I am unable to respond to your comment below, but I can respond here. I do come here occasionally, so I will not stop doing that.
However, as you can see from the comment that I am responding to, by “wedrifid”, even when I am civil, mature and write informative, technically thorough comments on LW, I get a barrage of insults such as the one just made by wedrifid.
I usually reserve my judgments on the general level of intelligence of the comments on this site. I am more honest when I speak about LW in other venues.
Here, I just act in a polite manner (though sometimes with the vivid, entertaining prose) and watch with great amusement as a torrent of hostility rains down.
Richard, please don’t be bullied off the site. It is LW that needs to learn how to handle debate and disagremeent, since they are basic to rationality.
Richard, please don’t be bullied off the site. It is LW that needs to learn how to handle debate and disagremeent, since they are basic to rationality.
Regardless of whether the comments are from Eliezer or from some barely known account terrible comments and petty antagonism are not welcome.
I don’t care one way or the other whether Richard Loosemore stays on the site. However, if he stays and continues to post the same way that he has thus far it would constitute a failure.
Almost everyhting he said has been civil, well informed an on topic. He has made one complaint about doenvoting, and EY has made an ad-hom against him. EYs behaviour has been worse.
I did see the insult, but Eliezer (quite rightly) got plenty of downvotes for it. I’m pretty sure that’s not the reason you’re being rated down.
I myself gave you a downvote because I got a strong impression that you were anthropomorphizing. Note that I did so before reading Eliezer’s comment.
I certainly should have explained my reasons after voting, but I was busy and the downvote button seemed convenient. Sorry about that. I’ll get started on a detailed response now.
It’s Yudkowsky’s site, populated by the kind of folks that estimate their IQ to be ~140 and score ~125 (self-reported) on an online test that over-estimates IQ. What you’d expect?
I want to upvote this for the link to further discussion, but I also want to downvote it for the passive-aggressive jab at LW users.
No vote.
I’m afraid the ‘troll prodrome’ behaviour you observe more than cancels out the usefulness of the link (and, for that matter, it prevented me from even considering the link as having positive expected value.)
Thank you.… but could you clarify your reasoning as to why it would be a “passive-aggressive jab at LW users”, when it was perhaps better described as a moderate response to the fact that EY entered the discussion with an openly hostile ad hominem comment that was clearly designed to encourage downvoting? (I assume you did see the insult...?)
Before the ad hominem: minimal downvoting. After: a torrent of downvoting.
And this has happened repeatedly. (By which I mean, the unexpected appearance of an LW heavyweight, who says nothing positive, but only launches a personal insult at me, followed by a sudden change in downvoting patterns).
The responses to your comments are predictable and appropriate. You are indicating through word and action that you are unable or unwilling to learn from the consequences of your behaviour. Your contributions add little positive to the site and you will continue to be received negatively for as long as you continue to needlessly antagonise. Please seek an alternate avenue for discussion which is more receptive to your style of interaction.
Peterdjones: I am unable to respond to your comment below, but I can respond here. I do come here occasionally, so I will not stop doing that.
However, as you can see from the comment that I am responding to, by “wedrifid”, even when I am civil, mature and write informative, technically thorough comments on LW, I get a barrage of insults such as the one just made by wedrifid.
I usually reserve my judgments on the general level of intelligence of the comments on this site. I am more honest when I speak about LW in other venues.
Here, I just act in a polite manner (though sometimes with the vivid, entertaining prose) and watch with great amusement as a torrent of hostility rains down.
Richard, please don’t be bullied off the site. It is LW that needs to learn how to handle debate and disagremeent, since they are basic to rationality.
Regardless of whether the comments are from Eliezer or from some barely known account terrible comments and petty antagonism are not welcome.
I don’t care one way or the other whether Richard Loosemore stays on the site. However, if he stays and continues to post the same way that he has thus far it would constitute a failure.
Almost everyhting he said has been civil, well informed an on topic. He has made one complaint about doenvoting, and EY has made an ad-hom against him. EYs behaviour has been worse.
I agree on this much and am glad that Eliezer was not well received either.
I did see the insult, but Eliezer (quite rightly) got plenty of downvotes for it. I’m pretty sure that’s not the reason you’re being rated down.
I myself gave you a downvote because I got a strong impression that you were anthropomorphizing. Note that I did so before reading Eliezer’s comment.
I certainly should have explained my reasons after voting, but I was busy and the downvote button seemed convenient. Sorry about that. I’ll get started on a detailed response now.
It’s Yudkowsky’s site, populated by the kind of folks that estimate their IQ to be ~140 and score ~125 (self-reported) on an online test that over-estimates IQ. What you’d expect?