I agree in general, but not as applied to this specific case. This is a major issue in science and/or epistemic rationality, about which prominent LWers have made bets, as noted below. News pertaining to “case studies” of this sort should always be welcome.
I have a possible explanation. However I have very little confidence in it and primarily proffer it for entertainment value, since I think Douglas_Knight’s post may have been a joke.
There have been 4 opera threads I’ve noted. This one, and 3 previous.
September was the initial thread (They may be breaking light speed?) No near top comment that I found (I did not check sub threads).
October was a possible counter argument thread. Vladimir objected to me posting this thread. For more than one reason, and I appreciated his critique.
November was the additional confirming evidence thread. No near top comment that I found (I did not check sub threads)
February is another counter argument thread. Vladimir objected to the posting of this thread.
This is just barely enough evidence for accusing Vladimir of publication bias to be funny (you’ve objected to 2 retractions and you haven’t objected to 2 confirmations!), but not enough to be taken seriously. And humor tends to be upvoted well. I think.
That being said, I would not be surprised to be TOTALLY off base on Douglas_Knight’s comment, since this is just my Internal Narrator trying to mash together evidence for a hypothesis to explain what I think is a joke. If for instance, he wasn’t joking, this is all just a silly theory.
Other thoughts to consider:
How many people are going to read through all of those threads just to make a stats joke? Apparently, this includes myself.
If enough of the same people think “Opera Anomaly? I want to read this!” They may have been subconciously aware of Vladimir_Nesov’s earlier comments. When Douglas Knight completed the loop out loud, it may have been funny, since some humor tends to contain a “Complete this pattern that I am aware of but have not actually verbalized!” format.
That may have been too much expansion. But on the upside, there are also links to previous Opera threads. Feel free to come up with a better (or more entertaining) hypothesis of Douglas_Knight’s remarks based on that reading.
I don’t see how discussion of current events would harm the community. Frankly we haven’t got enough to talk about. If you’re not interested, don’t click.
This works only to some extent, otherwise throwing all of the Internet in one big cauldron and stirring a bit would make no difference. The value of a forum is in the selection of its conversations, and while any given choice may be insignificant, that doesn’t argue for some particular way of resolving it, and inability to make such determinations may well add up to accumulated loss in quality.
This works only to some extent, otherwise throwing all of the Internet in one big cauldron and stirring a bit would make no difference.
It’s not a picture of a cute kitten, for crying out loud. Nor is it a gateway drug or a frictionless slippery slope. There IS a bid difference between a random news item and new information about something we have already had epistemic discussions about. There are even new considerations now about how much wish should be wary of confirmation bias when handling this evidence.
That “some extent” more than covers this page. So if you are not interested, really, don’t click.
I’d agree with that. I remember all the rationality related discussions so it fits together with me and I barely read it beyond the bare factoid. But if I were to make a post on it I would definitely include the relevant links and more than a token allusion to the considerations on how biases may relate.
From what exactly? What discussion have we been having in the last day or so that I missed out on by reading this for 20 seconds? Or, in the counterfactual world where nobody posted this or was distracted by reading it what is the expected caliber of post that some undistracted viewer would otherwise have written?
From what exactly? What discussion have we been having in the last day or so that I missed out on by reading this for 20 seconds?
Things other than discussions on LW, the measure of its comparative quality. I agree that this doesn’t clearly apply to this particular case, I was talking more about news in general.
Things other that discussions on LW, the measure of its comparative quality.
For example I could have spent that 20 seconds researching new conversation material so I don’t lose nerd status when I meet with my engineer friends? Oh.
That’s a fairly big goalpost switch by the way. You went from saying lesswrong should be distracted by this and it should be talked about elsewhere to relying on lesswrong itself being for most intents and purposes a waste of time relative to actually living. In fact, since your initial move was to place this topics outside the scope of lesswrong the comparison ends up being, among other things, between reading a lesswrong spin on neutrinos-speed research and discussing the same subject somewhere else where the relevant biases related to updating on this kind of research wouldn’t even be comprehended.
News are mostly noise. I think LW shouldn’t get distracted, there are other places where their discussion is more appropriate.
I agree in general, but not as applied to this specific case. This is a major issue in science and/or epistemic rationality, about which prominent LWers have made bets, as noted below. News pertaining to “case studies” of this sort should always be welcome.
By making this complaint now and not earlier, you are promoting publication bias.
Could someone expand on this? I don’t get it.
I have a possible explanation. However I have very little confidence in it and primarily proffer it for entertainment value, since I think Douglas_Knight’s post may have been a joke.
There have been 4 opera threads I’ve noted. This one, and 3 previous.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/8hh/opera_confirms_neutrinos_travel_faster_than_light/ (November, XiXiDu)
http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/83c/particles_may_not_have_broken_light_speed_limit/ (October, Me)
http://lesswrong.com/lw/7rc/particles_break_lightspeed_limit/ (September, Kevin)
September was the initial thread (They may be breaking light speed?) No near top comment that I found (I did not check sub threads). October was a possible counter argument thread. Vladimir objected to me posting this thread. For more than one reason, and I appreciated his critique. November was the additional confirming evidence thread. No near top comment that I found (I did not check sub threads) February is another counter argument thread. Vladimir objected to the posting of this thread.
This is just barely enough evidence for accusing Vladimir of publication bias to be funny (you’ve objected to 2 retractions and you haven’t objected to 2 confirmations!), but not enough to be taken seriously. And humor tends to be upvoted well. I think.
That being said, I would not be surprised to be TOTALLY off base on Douglas_Knight’s comment, since this is just my Internal Narrator trying to mash together evidence for a hypothesis to explain what I think is a joke. If for instance, he wasn’t joking, this is all just a silly theory.
Other thoughts to consider:
How many people are going to read through all of those threads just to make a stats joke? Apparently, this includes myself.
If enough of the same people think “Opera Anomaly? I want to read this!” They may have been subconciously aware of Vladimir_Nesov’s earlier comments. When Douglas Knight completed the loop out loud, it may have been funny, since some humor tends to contain a “Complete this pattern that I am aware of but have not actually verbalized!” format.
That may have been too much expansion. But on the upside, there are also links to previous Opera threads. Feel free to come up with a better (or more entertaining) hypothesis of Douglas_Knight’s remarks based on that reading.
I don’t see how discussion of current events would harm the community. Frankly we haven’t got enough to talk about. If you’re not interested, don’t click.
This works only to some extent, otherwise throwing all of the Internet in one big cauldron and stirring a bit would make no difference. The value of a forum is in the selection of its conversations, and while any given choice may be insignificant, that doesn’t argue for some particular way of resolving it, and inability to make such determinations may well add up to accumulated loss in quality.
It’s not a picture of a cute kitten, for crying out loud. Nor is it a gateway drug or a frictionless slippery slope. There IS a bid difference between a random news item and new information about something we have already had epistemic discussions about. There are even new considerations now about how much wish should be wary of confirmation bias when handling this evidence.
That “some extent” more than covers this page. So if you are not interested, really, don’t click.
If it relates to other on-topic discussions, then there should be links to them in the post. Without that, it’s just an off-topic post.
I’d agree with that. I remember all the rationality related discussions so it fits together with me and I barely read it beyond the bare factoid. But if I were to make a post on it I would definitely include the relevant links and more than a token allusion to the considerations on how biases may relate.
From what exactly? What discussion have we been having in the last day or so that I missed out on by reading this for 20 seconds? Or, in the counterfactual world where nobody posted this or was distracted by reading it what is the expected caliber of post that some undistracted viewer would otherwise have written?
Things other than discussions on LW, the measure of its comparative quality. I agree that this doesn’t clearly apply to this particular case, I was talking more about news in general.
Yes, news in general is boring. I avoid news enough that this post is the first I heard (and only likely source) about this subject.
For example I could have spent that 20 seconds researching new conversation material so I don’t lose nerd status when I meet with my engineer friends? Oh.
That’s a fairly big goalpost switch by the way. You went from saying lesswrong should be distracted by this and it should be talked about elsewhere to relying on lesswrong itself being for most intents and purposes a waste of time relative to actually living. In fact, since your initial move was to place this topics outside the scope of lesswrong the comparison ends up being, among other things, between reading a lesswrong spin on neutrinos-speed research and discussing the same subject somewhere else where the relevant biases related to updating on this kind of research wouldn’t even be comprehended.
Disagree!