I need to write up the results myself because I personally ran the minicamp with Anna Salamon and Andrew Critch. But I have tons of stuff I could have you do that would free up more of my time to get around to writing up results of minicamp data. If you’re interested in helping, that would be awesome. You can contact me at lukeprog [at] gmail.
I actually have no interest in supporting your research. Every time I ask a clarifying question of any of your claims, you get extremely defensive and fail to answer it, which suggests a poor understaning of what you’re trying to present results on. Also, every piece of advice I’ve followed falls woefully short of what you claim it does, and I don’t seem to be alone here (on either point). I think your contributions are overrated.
(This is a large part of why I put such a low prior on claims of the minicamp’s phenomenal success and was so skeptical of the report.)
I don’t claim to have contributed more research, to LW, of course, but when I do present research I make sure to understand it.
In fairness, your more recent work doesn’t seem to be subject to any of this, so I could very well change my opinion on this.
The comment you linked to doesn’t seem like a clarifying question at all. I think that conversation might be another instance where your belligerent tone hurt communication even though your point was a valid one. Luke’s answer didn’t seem particularly defensive, either (although I have seen other conversations where his tone was defensive, so I won’t challenge that point.)
I actually agree with you on this point (and upvoted all your questions about it), but the longer you argue the less sympathetic I’m getting. You asked when results would be published, and the answer was that it requires a lot of processing time. You asked if volunteers can help, and Luke answered that while volunteers can’t help on that specifically, they can contribute to other things which will speed up the process. To which you answered:
I actually have no interest in supporting your research....I think your contributions are overrated.
Which just doesn’t show a whole lot of interest in actually resolving the problem you’re concerned about.
Every time I ask a clarifying question of any of your claims, you get extremely defensive and fail to answer it, which suggests a poor understaning of what you’re trying to present results on.
Regarding the comment thread you linked to, I agree that the initial response you received was defensive and uninformative. I am not surprised to see it sitting at zero upvotes.
When you prodded further, you got a good response, so while I think you didn’t come out badly in that exchange at all, I am surprised that you are citing it as evidence of lukeprog understanding poorly. It instead suggests that he responds defensively even when he does understand and has a cogent answer, and that defensiveness from him implies shallow understanding far less than it would from others.
I think your contributions are overrated.
I have little problem with bluntly telling people that they suck, and by extension don’t mind less offending forthright communication, but I am leery of discussing people’s work by evaluating how people’s work compares to the popular perception of their work. It introduces an unnecessary factual dispute—how people are perceived.
E.g. “Loui Eriksson is the most underrated player in the NHL, just ask anyone! Wait a second...if everyone agrees, then...”
“Loui Eriksson is the most underrated player in the NHL, just ask anyone! Wait a second...if everyone agrees, then...”
A new player poll asking who the most underrated NHL player is just came out, and guess who got more than twice as many votes as the second most voted for player? Hint: he was named to the All-Star roster last year...yes, it’s Loui Eriksson, again. This makes little sense. How many years in a row and in how many polls can a single guy be perceived by so many as “most underrated?”
New Year’s resolution: avoid discussing whether or not something is overrated or underrated and simply evaluate its actual worth.
When you prodded further, you got a good response, so while I think you didn’t come out badly in that exchange at all, I am surprised that you are citing it as evidence of lukeprog understanding poorly.
I disagree. The final response was just as unhelpful; it’s just that I didn’t bother pushing the point. Luke tried to imply that the research he cited showed how to “dress fashionably based on magazines” yet not be consumerist, which is completely false.
I have little problem with bluntly telling people that they suck, and by extension don’t mind less offending forthright communication, but I am leery of discussing people’s work by evaluating how people’s work compares to the popular perception of their work.
Well, there is a tendency among forums for people to automatically vote up anything that looks well researched, so it’s important to know when that facade isn’t holding up. And considering the number of times Luke gets corrected on his use of a source or otherwise crumples on any follow-up question, I’m worried this is one of those cases, and so I can’t avoid implicating people for hasty upvoting.
But again, some of his more recent work looks to be more careful.
SilasBarta,
I need to write up the results myself because I personally ran the minicamp with Anna Salamon and Andrew Critch. But I have tons of stuff I could have you do that would free up more of my time to get around to writing up results of minicamp data. If you’re interested in helping, that would be awesome. You can contact me at lukeprog [at] gmail.
I actually have no interest in supporting your research. Every time I ask a clarifying question of any of your claims, you get extremely defensive and fail to answer it, which suggests a poor understaning of what you’re trying to present results on. Also, every piece of advice I’ve followed falls woefully short of what you claim it does, and I don’t seem to be alone here (on either point). I think your contributions are overrated.
(This is a large part of why I put such a low prior on claims of the minicamp’s phenomenal success and was so skeptical of the report.)
I don’t claim to have contributed more research, to LW, of course, but when I do present research I make sure to understand it.
In fairness, your more recent work doesn’t seem to be subject to any of this, so I could very well change my opinion on this.
I wish you’d be a bit more Columbo about this. You know, unfailingly polite, generous, but dogged to the end.
The comment you linked to doesn’t seem like a clarifying question at all. I think that conversation might be another instance where your belligerent tone hurt communication even though your point was a valid one. Luke’s answer didn’t seem particularly defensive, either (although I have seen other conversations where his tone was defensive, so I won’t challenge that point.)
I actually agree with you on this point (and upvoted all your questions about it), but the longer you argue the less sympathetic I’m getting. You asked when results would be published, and the answer was that it requires a lot of processing time. You asked if volunteers can help, and Luke answered that while volunteers can’t help on that specifically, they can contribute to other things which will speed up the process. To which you answered:
Which just doesn’t show a whole lot of interest in actually resolving the problem you’re concerned about.
Regarding the comment thread you linked to, I agree that the initial response you received was defensive and uninformative. I am not surprised to see it sitting at zero upvotes.
When you prodded further, you got a good response, so while I think you didn’t come out badly in that exchange at all, I am surprised that you are citing it as evidence of lukeprog understanding poorly. It instead suggests that he responds defensively even when he does understand and has a cogent answer, and that defensiveness from him implies shallow understanding far less than it would from others.
I have little problem with bluntly telling people that they suck, and by extension don’t mind less offending forthright communication, but I am leery of discussing people’s work by evaluating how people’s work compares to the popular perception of their work. It introduces an unnecessary factual dispute—how people are perceived.
E.g. “Loui Eriksson is the most underrated player in the NHL, just ask anyone! Wait a second...if everyone agrees, then...”
A new player poll asking who the most underrated NHL player is just came out, and guess who got more than twice as many votes as the second most voted for player? Hint: he was named to the All-Star roster last year...yes, it’s Loui Eriksson, again. This makes little sense. How many years in a row and in how many polls can a single guy be perceived by so many as “most underrated?”
New Year’s resolution: avoid discussing whether or not something is overrated or underrated and simply evaluate its actual worth.
I disagree. The final response was just as unhelpful; it’s just that I didn’t bother pushing the point. Luke tried to imply that the research he cited showed how to “dress fashionably based on magazines” yet not be consumerist, which is completely false.
Well, there is a tendency among forums for people to automatically vote up anything that looks well researched, so it’s important to know when that facade isn’t holding up. And considering the number of times Luke gets corrected on his use of a source or otherwise crumples on any follow-up question, I’m worried this is one of those cases, and so I can’t avoid implicating people for hasty upvoting.
But again, some of his more recent work looks to be more careful.
It may be OK in poker to try calling someone’s bluff with a bluff of your own, but it’s pretty rude in real life.
It should come as no surprise that I broadly support Silas’ skepticism.
“I actually have no interest in supporting your research. ”
Eliezer might have to defend the Golden Boy here. This takes issue with Eliezer’s promotion of Luke.
“I think your contributions are overrated.”
Ouch! Silas is bringing the bitch slap.