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.
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.