They are deliberate misrepresentations, but taken to such an extreme that I thought a single disclaimer would be sufficient to convince people that to nitpick at the list is to miss the point.
I did put thought into the misrepresentations. The first item in the list starts: “I want people to cut off my head”. I wasn’t exactly subtle.
I’m not apologizing (although given the reaction here I realize that it was a bad idea so I will refrain from making such lists in the future). I had to choose between giving a really good list about beliefs people here are likely to hold (would be too long and distracting) or a list that’s humorous and laughably bad, but that would still touch upon many issues (ethics, cryonics, AI, friendly AI, time, quantum mechanics) to emphasize just how many opinions (mine at least) are influenced by the sequences and the community here.
The list is meant as a reflection on how crazy LessWrong seems to an outsider.
I had to choose between giving a really good list about beliefs people here are likely to hold (would be too long and distracting) or a list that’s humorous and laughably bad, but that would still touch upon many issues (ethics, cryonics, AI, friendly AI, time, quantum mechanics) to emphasize just how many opinions (mine at least) are influenced by the sequences and the community here.
This is a false dichotomy. It would have been better to do one of at least several things:
1) Present beliefs superficially similar to LW beliefs but technically wrong, to show what it looks like to see a LWish looking belief and thinking it ridiculous.
2) Present beliefs that LWers actually hold, but stated in such a way as to appear ridiculous at first pass, to show what it looks like for actual LWish beliefs to appear ridiculous.
I think where you went wrong was trying to do both simultaneously.
I’m sorry if I contributed to an environment in which ideas are too criticized, and/or with clumsy distinguishing between the idea and the idea’s creator, such that people don’t properly float ideas while holding off on proposing solutions, and instead censor themselves. That sort of thing is what the discussion section is for.
One criticism I had that’s more to the “nitpick” than “important, but value-judgement based” end of the spectrum is is how the first statement is a belief about someone’s desires. It’s a gaudy mistake to make, it seems somewhat possible that my harsh general criticism combined with the fact that the critique of that was from me are responsible for you not correcting that bit as I was the one to point it out.
I chose the wording carefully, because “I want people to cut off my head” is funny, and the more general or more correct phrasing is not. But now that it has been thoroughly dissected...
Anyway, since you asked twice I’m going to change way the first statement is phrased. I don’t feel that strongly about it and if you find it grating I’m also happy to change it to any other phrasing of your choosing.
I’m sorry if I contributed to an environment in which ideas are too criticized
I interpret your first post as motivated on a need to voice your disagreement, not motivated based on the expected utility of the post for the community. I’m sometimes guilty of this because sometimes it seems almost criminal to not point out that something is wrong when it is in fact wrong.
As a general rule, disagreements voiced in a single sentence “This is false because of X” or “No, this contradicts your second paragraph” come across pretty aggressively. In my experience only very few people respond well to disagreements voiced in that manner. You’ve also accused me of fallacious reasoning twice even though there was no good reason to do so (because more charitable interpretations of what I said are not fallacious).
I interpret your first post as motivated on a need to voice your disagreement, not motivated based on the expected utility of the post for the community.
Causation in general and motivation in particular don’t work like that.
All of my past experiences, excepting none--->me--->my actions
more general or more correct phrasing is not.
Maybe we can think of something.
I don’t feel that strongly about it
I think it is important to keep track of meta levels when talking about beliefs and their relationship to reality.
I think you should stick to doing either of the two sorts of lists I suggested. You say you thought only a single disclaimer was needed, but at least two are:
Besides, the scientific method is wrong because it is in conflict with probability theory. Oh, and probability is created by humans, it doesn’t exist in the universe.
This is a good example of a false belief resembling a LW one. Looking at it tells me a bit about how others might see a LW belief as radical and false, though not everything as I can see how it isn’t a LW belief.
It is possible to run a person on Conways Game of Life. This would be a person as real as you or me, and wouldn’t be able to tell he’s in a virtual world because it looks exactly like ours.
This is a good example of a true belief phrased to sound unpersuasive and stupid. Looking at it tells me a bit about how others might see a LW belief as radical and false, though not everything as I can see how it is true.
The first item in the list starts: “I want people to cut off my head”. I wasn’t exactly subtle.
If you so want, then even Rian would agree that the statement is true. I hadn’t mentioned it because I didn’t want to nitpick, but FYI in case you want to post this to the main page.
If you have worked your way through most of the sequences you are likely to agree with the majority of these statements...although they’re deliberately phrased to incite kneejerk disagreement and ugh-fields I think most LW readers will find themselves in agreement with almost all of them.
If you had wanted to say what LW looks like from the outside, there was no reason to tether appearances to actual beliefs.
They are deliberate misrepresentations, but taken to such an extreme that I thought a single disclaimer would be sufficient to convince people that to nitpick at the list is to miss the point.
I did put thought into the misrepresentations. The first item in the list starts: “I want people to cut off my head”. I wasn’t exactly subtle.
I’m not apologizing (although given the reaction here I realize that it was a bad idea so I will refrain from making such lists in the future). I had to choose between giving a really good list about beliefs people here are likely to hold (would be too long and distracting) or a list that’s humorous and laughably bad, but that would still touch upon many issues (ethics, cryonics, AI, friendly AI, time, quantum mechanics) to emphasize just how many opinions (mine at least) are influenced by the sequences and the community here.
The list is meant as a reflection on how crazy LessWrong seems to an outsider.
This is a false dichotomy. It would have been better to do one of at least several things:
1) Present beliefs superficially similar to LW beliefs but technically wrong, to show what it looks like to see a LWish looking belief and thinking it ridiculous.
2) Present beliefs that LWers actually hold, but stated in such a way as to appear ridiculous at first pass, to show what it looks like for actual LWish beliefs to appear ridiculous.
I think where you went wrong was trying to do both simultaneously.
I’m sorry if I contributed to an environment in which ideas are too criticized, and/or with clumsy distinguishing between the idea and the idea’s creator, such that people don’t properly float ideas while holding off on proposing solutions, and instead censor themselves. That sort of thing is what the discussion section is for.
One criticism I had that’s more to the “nitpick” than “important, but value-judgement based” end of the spectrum is is how the first statement is a belief about someone’s desires. It’s a gaudy mistake to make, it seems somewhat possible that my harsh general criticism combined with the fact that the critique of that was from me are responsible for you not correcting that bit as I was the one to point it out.
I chose the wording carefully, because “I want people to cut off my head” is funny, and the more general or more correct phrasing is not. But now that it has been thoroughly dissected...
Anyway, since you asked twice I’m going to change way the first statement is phrased. I don’t feel that strongly about it and if you find it grating I’m also happy to change it to any other phrasing of your choosing.
I interpret your first post as motivated on a need to voice your disagreement, not motivated based on the expected utility of the post for the community. I’m sometimes guilty of this because sometimes it seems almost criminal to not point out that something is wrong when it is in fact wrong.
As a general rule, disagreements voiced in a single sentence “This is false because of X” or “No, this contradicts your second paragraph” come across pretty aggressively. In my experience only very few people respond well to disagreements voiced in that manner. You’ve also accused me of fallacious reasoning twice even though there was no good reason to do so (because more charitable interpretations of what I said are not fallacious).
Causation in general and motivation in particular don’t work like that.
All of my past experiences, excepting none--->me--->my actions
Maybe we can think of something.
I think it is important to keep track of meta levels when talking about beliefs and their relationship to reality.
I think you should stick to doing either of the two sorts of lists I suggested. You say you thought only a single disclaimer was needed, but at least two are:
This is a good example of a false belief resembling a LW one. Looking at it tells me a bit about how others might see a LW belief as radical and false, though not everything as I can see how it isn’t a LW belief.
This is a good example of a true belief phrased to sound unpersuasive and stupid. Looking at it tells me a bit about how others might see a LW belief as radical and false, though not everything as I can see how it is true.
If you so want, then even Rian would agree that the statement is true. I hadn’t mentioned it because I didn’t want to nitpick, but FYI in case you want to post this to the main page.
If you had wanted to say what LW looks like from the outside, there was no reason to tether appearances to actual beliefs.