Should LessWrong /kick people who fail at rationality? Who makes the decision? Who draws the sanity water-line?
If we were doing that I would have /kicked Robin Hanson a long time ago and probably Eliezer too. There are few people who do not have at least one position they stick to more than would be rational.
As far as I am concerned you are more than welcome and seem to be a thoroughly positive influence towards rational discussion. Besides, you will probably not believe in God for much longer. People just don’t tend to change that sort of fundamental part of their identity straight away unless they have some sort of traumatic experience (eg. hazing).
From this exchange, it doesn’t sound like the Alexxarian was being threatened with /kick for failing rationality—it was for failing to use the right linguistic patterns when he was consistently (and correctly) questioned by people using the right linguistic patterns. The exchange would have gone very differently if Alexxarian said something like “Solak’s book sounds convincing to me” instead of “[Solak] logically proves”.
MrHen’s post is soaked in doubt and admissions of uncertainty, so it is nearly impossible for us to judge him.
From this exchange, it doesn’t sound like the Alexxarian was being threatened with /kick for failing rationality
I didn’t make part of that conversation but it sounds like Alexxarian was being threatened for reasons distinct from having a particular irrational belief. Do you think Alexxarian’s convo was what MrHen was really talking about when he asked the questions here? Being unfamiliar with that potential context I simply took them at face value as general questions of policy.
I don’t think that specific conversation was being referred to, but the general pattern of Eliezer’s willingness to ban people that are consistently downmodded in conversations.
My broader point was that by using the appropriate language to admit wrongness and irrationality and uncertainty, it should be permissible to be almost arbitrarily irrational here, at least until someone tells you to go read the sequences before commenting again.
I don’t think that specific conversation was being referred to, but the general pattern of Eliezer’s willingness to ban people that are consistently downmodded in conversations.
What I have always found weird was him actually threatening to delete all future comments from an account rather than actually banning the account. Freedom with message deletion actually makes me more nervous than a free hand with the /kick command. It seems more transparent.
My broader point was that by using the appropriate language to admit wrongness and irrationality and uncertainty, it should be permissible to be almost arbitrarily irrational here, at least until someone tells you to go read the sequences before commenting again.
Humility and basic courtesy do go a long way, don’t they?
I think it was the meta thread where I commented that Less Wrong needs a Hacker News style dead/showdead system, which allows you to arbitrarily censor while simultaneously allaying concerns about censorship.
Humility and basic courtesy do go a long way, don’t they?
If we were doing that I would have /kicked Robin Hanson a long time ago and probably Eliezer too. There are few people who do not have at least one position they stick to more than would be rational.
As far as I am concerned you are more than welcome and seem to be a thoroughly positive influence towards rational discussion. Besides, you will probably not believe in God for much longer. People just don’t tend to change that sort of fundamental part of their identity straight away unless they have some sort of traumatic experience (eg. hazing).
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ly/consciousness/1fjv
From this exchange, it doesn’t sound like the Alexxarian was being threatened with /kick for failing rationality—it was for failing to use the right linguistic patterns when he was consistently (and correctly) questioned by people using the right linguistic patterns. The exchange would have gone very differently if Alexxarian said something like “Solak’s book sounds convincing to me” instead of “[Solak] logically proves”.
MrHen’s post is soaked in doubt and admissions of uncertainty, so it is nearly impossible for us to judge him.
As a participant in that thread, I saw four problems which threatened to earn him the banhammer:
Topic derailing—rather than engage with the material he was ostensibly replying to, Alexxarian chose to promote his own ideas.
Excessive linkage to outside material without proper summarizing.
Poor understanding of comment etiquette.
Vague thinking and writing.
Linguistic patterns appear in the ultimate and penultimate points, but they do not constitute the whole story.
I didn’t make part of that conversation but it sounds like Alexxarian was being threatened for reasons distinct from having a particular irrational belief. Do you think Alexxarian’s convo was what MrHen was really talking about when he asked the questions here? Being unfamiliar with that potential context I simply took them at face value as general questions of policy.
I don’t think that specific conversation was being referred to, but the general pattern of Eliezer’s willingness to ban people that are consistently downmodded in conversations.
My broader point was that by using the appropriate language to admit wrongness and irrationality and uncertainty, it should be permissible to be almost arbitrarily irrational here, at least until someone tells you to go read the sequences before commenting again.
What I have always found weird was him actually threatening to delete all future comments from an account rather than actually banning the account. Freedom with message deletion actually makes me more nervous than a free hand with the /kick command. It seems more transparent.
Humility and basic courtesy do go a long way, don’t they?
I think it was the meta thread where I commented that Less Wrong needs a Hacker News style dead/showdead system, which allows you to arbitrarily censor while simultaneously allaying concerns about censorship.
Amen.