When I read a phrase like key fiendings I would expect on LW an argument that’s backed up by research. Without any reference to published research and facts established by published research, the argument you are making feels ill-supported.
In addition you are using a lot of bold-text which is a stylistic choice that often done key sales pages.
Together the resulting text feels like it’s not up to the standards of LW discourse.
I didn’t wrote anything about anticipation. I wrote about expectations. There’s a subtle difference between the two.
Expectations aren’t simply predictions. Expectations are about norms. Content like that which is below the norms of what’s expected on LessWrong gets downvoted, so that it doesn’t show up anymore.
When I read a phrase like key fiendings I would expect on LW an argument that’s backed up by research. Without any reference to published research and facts established by published research, the argument you are making feels ill-supported.
In addition you are using a lot of bold-text which is a stylistic choice that often done key sales pages.
Together the resulting text feels like it’s not up to the standards of LW discourse.
This was nothing but an abstract on my concept.
Also, it is not some scientific paper, which I thought i clearly expressed.
You anticipating this appears to me like some fallacy—which I would not expect here.
I didn’t wrote anything about anticipation. I wrote about expectations. There’s a subtle difference between the two.
Expectations aren’t simply predictions. Expectations are about norms. Content like that which is below the norms of what’s expected on LessWrong gets downvoted, so that it doesn’t show up anymore.