Why was this voted up to +4? Y’all are way too scared of being labeled cultish if you’re voting this stuff up.
I really wish there was some way to teach arrogance. It seems to be such a large factor in whether people actually make progress as rationalists or not.
I liked the suggestions. I wouldn’t permanently ban any topics but if every couple of months we stopped talking about transhumanist topics I think the results would be really constructive and help grow the community.
I really wish there was some way to teach arrogance. It seems to be such a large factor in whether people actually make progress as rationalists or not.
I don’t usually find cause to say this in reply to downvoted comments, but that is worth a post. Particularly because the conception you have of arrogance (or at least, the conceptions that I infer you have about arrogance) crosses some significant inferential barriers so is lost somewhat in this context.
I agree on both counts, and thanks for rounding up the links. Somewhere in my collection of half-baked drafts is a post specific to arrogance itself, how the definition is tied to status, when it is useful and when it isn’t.
He was condescending. When people are policing they tend to assert and maintain their higher status rather than ‘descending to be with’. The difference is significant (at least, to the reaction I have to attempts at each and the quality standards I have for comments of each type.)
Why was this voted up to +4? Y’all are way too scared of being labeled cultish if you’re voting this stuff up.
I really wish there was some way to teach arrogance. It seems to be such a large factor in whether people actually make progress as rationalists or not.
I liked the suggestions. I wouldn’t permanently ban any topics but if every couple of months we stopped talking about transhumanist topics I think the results would be really constructive and help grow the community.
Just keep modeling. ;)
Why was this not downvoted to −10? Y’all are way too cultish if you are not voting this stuff down.
I really wish there was some way to teach irony. It seems to be such a large factor in whether people actually make progress as rationalists or not.
I don’t usually find cause to say this in reply to downvoted comments, but that is worth a post. Particularly because the conception you have of arrogance (or at least, the conceptions that I infer you have about arrogance) crosses some significant inferential barriers so is lost somewhat in this context.
I think The Proper Use of Humility, The Proper Use of Doubt, Science Doesn’t Trust Your Rationality, and Einstein’s Superpowers contain most of the essential ideas, which isn’t to say that a post amplifying the point wouldn’t be useful.
I agree on both counts, and thanks for rounding up the links. Somewhere in my collection of half-baked drafts is a post specific to arrogance itself, how the definition is tied to status, when it is useful and when it isn’t.
One symptom from the linked definition of groupthink:
Seriously though man, you’re the one that has the overwhelming karma lead around here. Seems a little petty to police 4 dissenting votes.
Karma isn’t the point.
He was condescending. When people are policing they tend to assert and maintain their higher status rather than ‘descending to be with’. The difference is significant (at least, to the reaction I have to attempts at each and the quality standards I have for comments of each type.)