These threads are too dangerous. Nerds trend towards highly aspergeroid thought. There needs to be a moderator who is competent overviewing this. Sorry, people who have not taken personal risk ‘in the field’ cannot be having these discussions. Online discussions obscure the effectiveness of their authors.
I’m not sure I understand. Can’t I give advice on how not to waste money because I am not a 50 year old war veteran who has traveled through three continents? Since not wasting money is the most effective thing the average person can do to change the difference between income and spending in the better direction.
Complaining that someone is not qualifield to give advice because they did not take any risk “in the field” or did not “experience it themselves” without qualifying what would constitute good advice or a good advisor is pretty standard too. At least personally I would not insist on my physician having had cancer before.
Though I do have to admit that the comment about the average nerd is more accurate than I’d like to admit. I won’t continue this discussion further.
It’s difficult to coordinate moderators on these threads but there may be other means.
Do you think it would help if there were a rule that comments should be down-voted (in these kind of threads) if they are not backed by hard evidence (i.e. solid advice by experts). A requirement that is not unusual around here anyway.
Actually I requested evidence in the OP and will right now go throu my votes and check.for this condition.
As usual, people completely miss the point. One of the people I respect intellectually the most is autistic, Curt Doolittle. As is one of my co-founders. Comments like this are so annoying.
They just trend towards ‘objects’, as opposed to ‘not’. If you meet most Less Wrongers in real life you can see the extreme manifestation of this tendency.
You also notice how most, but not all of them
Never have been under risk/pressure their entire life and thus their ‘rationality’ is platonic.
Large divergence between their assumed online identities erudition and what you see in real life
These people try to give advice that has a tendency to superficially sound good, but is not well informed.
People who assume their intelligence and rationality as a wardrobe. Something to put on and show off, to give themselves ‘smart points’. These people are the worst and make extremely advanced mistakes and have slight neurotic tendencies to engage in long arguments over and over.
This is just saying that threads like these are dangerous. You’re a good example of some one who completely missed the point.
If you find that people consistently miss the point of what you’re writing, you might consider working to improve your communication skills. For example, I’ve read this sentence several times and I’m still not sure how to parse it: “They just trend towards ‘objects’, as opposed to ‘not’.” I appreciate that you’re trying to tell me what I might be doing wrong, but currently you aren’t explaining yourself very clearly or convincingly, so I’m not sure if what you’re saying is correct or valuable.
I’m pretty sure the meaning of that sentence is: “The people I am describing are more interested in impersonal objects than in people, and cope better with impersonal objects than with people”.
There may be some truth in that. But it’s entirely unobvious why it should tell us anything about those people’s competence to offer financial advice, and (despite SanguineEmpiricist’s some-of-my-best-friends response) it’s hard not to suspect an attempt to exploit the halo/horns effect. (Warning: link in previous sentence is to a RationalWiki page; RW isn’t super-reliable in general but this page seems OK.)
This is just saying that threads like these are dangerous.
Not quite, you explicitly called for a moderator to “overview this” implying that hoi polloi readers are not competent enough to decide for themselves.
And, of course, life is dangerous. The internet, in particular, is very very dangerous. It gives people ideas. Dangerous ideas...
“It’s a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don’t keep your feet, there’s no knowing where you might be swept off to.”
I meant a moderator in the context of moderated discussion, approved etc. Financial markets have a large skill requirement and a easy way to destroy yourself.
Alright what about a bet of 500-1.5k comparing risks that I have personally taken that inform my decisions say versus yours signed via openpgp key and how that informs our views. Done via escrow. I’ve seen people lose in a variety of contexts. People who have not taken risks make lame jokes like yours. People are providing stupid investment advice saying things that “sound good”. Otherwise the blog Bayesian Investor should be sufficient.
Me vs you, character assessment, lifelong risks financial & personal, equity & survival rate vs adversarial conflict ie violence and other difficult situations you have encountered. With decent verification.
Any trustworthy third party agreed by the both of us, information kept secret between us three. Assign your priors and get going.
I know nothing about you and the argument is all about me. How about this—a bet on whether I can demonstrate being significantly above the average (population or LW, doesn’t matter) by the criteria you listed a couple of posts up plus “lifelong risks financial & personal, equity & survival rate vs adversarial conflict ie violence and other difficult situations you have encountered”. Some things might be difficult to verify but we can let the arbiter decide whether s/he trust them or not.
These threads are too dangerous. Nerds trend towards highly aspergeroid thought. There needs to be a moderator who is competent overviewing this. Sorry, people who have not taken personal risk ‘in the field’ cannot be having these discussions. Online discussions obscure the effectiveness of their authors.
I’m not sure I understand. Can’t I give advice on how not to waste money because I am not a 50 year old war veteran who has traveled through three continents? Since not wasting money is the most effective thing the average person can do to change the difference between income and spending in the better direction.
Another example of some uncharitable reading(standard). Giving advice from the negative as you described is fine.
Are we playing this game?
Complaining that someone is not qualifield to give advice because they did not take any risk “in the field” or did not “experience it themselves” without qualifying what would constitute good advice or a good advisor is pretty standard too. At least personally I would not insist on my physician having had cancer before.
Though I do have to admit that the comment about the average nerd is more accurate than I’d like to admit. I won’t continue this discussion further.
It’s difficult to coordinate moderators on these threads but there may be other means.
Do you think it would help if there were a rule that comments should be down-voted (in these kind of threads) if they are not backed by hard evidence (i.e. solid advice by experts). A requirement that is not unusual around here anyway.
Actually I requested evidence in the OP and will right now go throu my votes and check.for this condition.
Yeah, keep sharp and pointy ideas away from aspies. Can’t allow them to play unsupervised, y’know...
As usual, people completely miss the point. One of the people I respect intellectually the most is autistic, Curt Doolittle. As is one of my co-founders. Comments like this are so annoying.
They just trend towards ‘objects’, as opposed to ‘not’. If you meet most Less Wrongers in real life you can see the extreme manifestation of this tendency.
You also notice how most, but not all of them
Never have been under risk/pressure their entire life and thus their ‘rationality’ is platonic.
Large divergence between their assumed online identities erudition and what you see in real life
These people try to give advice that has a tendency to superficially sound good, but is not well informed.
People who assume their intelligence and rationality as a wardrobe. Something to put on and show off, to give themselves ‘smart points’. These people are the worst and make extremely advanced mistakes and have slight neurotic tendencies to engage in long arguments over and over.
This is just saying that threads like these are dangerous. You’re a good example of some one who completely missed the point.
If you find that people consistently miss the point of what you’re writing, you might consider working to improve your communication skills. For example, I’ve read this sentence several times and I’m still not sure how to parse it: “They just trend towards ‘objects’, as opposed to ‘not’.” I appreciate that you’re trying to tell me what I might be doing wrong, but currently you aren’t explaining yourself very clearly or convincingly, so I’m not sure if what you’re saying is correct or valuable.
I’m pretty sure the meaning of that sentence is: “The people I am describing are more interested in impersonal objects than in people, and cope better with impersonal objects than with people”.
There may be some truth in that. But it’s entirely unobvious why it should tell us anything about those people’s competence to offer financial advice, and (despite SanguineEmpiricist’s some-of-my-best-friends response) it’s hard not to suspect an attempt to exploit the halo/horns effect. (Warning: link in previous sentence is to a RationalWiki page; RW isn’t super-reliable in general but this page seems OK.)
Not quite, you explicitly called for a moderator to “overview this” implying that hoi polloi readers are not competent enough to decide for themselves.
And, of course, life is dangerous. The internet, in particular, is very very dangerous. It gives people ideas. Dangerous ideas...
“It’s a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don’t keep your feet, there’s no knowing where you might be swept off to.”
I meant a moderator in the context of moderated discussion, approved etc. Financial markets have a large skill requirement and a easy way to destroy yourself.
Alright what about a bet of 500-1.5k comparing risks that I have personally taken that inform my decisions say versus yours signed via openpgp key and how that informs our views. Done via escrow. I’ve seen people lose in a variety of contexts. People who have not taken risks make lame jokes like yours. People are providing stupid investment advice saying things that “sound good”. Otherwise the blog Bayesian Investor should be sufficient.
More advanced mistakes.
So who bets what and how will the bet be decided?
Me vs you, character assessment, lifelong risks financial & personal, equity & survival rate vs adversarial conflict ie violence and other difficult situations you have encountered. With decent verification.
Any trustworthy third party agreed by the both of us, information kept secret between us three. Assign your priors and get going.
I know nothing about you and the argument is all about me. How about this—a bet on whether I can demonstrate being significantly above the average (population or LW, doesn’t matter) by the criteria you listed a couple of posts up plus “lifelong risks financial & personal, equity & survival rate vs adversarial conflict ie violence and other difficult situations you have encountered”. Some things might be difficult to verify but we can let the arbiter decide whether s/he trust them or not.
This doesn’t even make sense. I made some simple claim now I have to deal with forum neurotics. Forum posting is not a lifestyle.
It is not hard to see how stupid advice can be costly. Go away.
Y’know, there is a very simple solution to that.
LOL. You wish.