Dark arts are very toxic, in the sense that you naturally and necessarily use any and all of your relevant beliefs to construct self-serving arguments on most occasions. Moreover, once you happen to successfully use some rationality technique in a self-serving manner, you become more prone to using it in such a way on future occasions. Thus, once you catch other people using dark arts and understand what’s going on, you are more likely to use the same tricks yourself. >80% sure (I don’t have an intuitive feeling for amounts of evidence, but here I would need at least 6dB of evidence to become uncertain).
I’m confused by the upvotes. (ETA: Parent was at +7 votes when I commented.) What do people disagree with?
The only controversial part for me is the use of certain words (in bold below), but these are minor disagreements that disappear under a charitable interpretation:
Dark arts are very toxic, in the sense that you naturally and necessarily use any and all of your relevant beliefs to construct self-serving arguments on most occasions.
Otherwise, I believe the parent’s statements with high confidence (95%).
What a fun game! I notice that I’m somewhat confused, too. I see a couple of different approaches; maybe some of the upvoters would step in and explain themselves.
What a fun game! I notice that I’m somewhat confused, too. I see a couple of different approaches; maybe some of the upvoters would step in and explain themselves.
If getting upvotes for a comment here is something that would confuses you then you aren’t supposed to make the comment. The point is to make comments that you predict others will disagree/upvote despite you actually believing what you are saying.
I was confused about getting several upvotes quickly, but without prompting debate. I began wondering if my proposition pattern-matched something not as interesting to discuss.
Your confidence is much higher than marchdown’s. You should have upvoted because you think he’s underconfident. Mind you I upvoted it myself because:
once you catch other people using dark arts and understand what’s going on, you are more likely to use the same tricks yourself
is definitely not true for me, as when I learn that I am subtly and subconsciously manipulating people, I stop doing it. And when I learn some trick to make people agree with me, I make sure I don’t do it.
Your confidence is much higher than marchdown’s. You should have upvoted because you think he’s underconfident.
Even when using 80% as Marchdown’s confidence, I didn’t feel that our confidences were much different, so I just calculated: the ln of our odds ratio is 1.56, whereas in the original rules, that for
If they’re at 99.9% and you’re at 99.5%, it could go either way.
is 1.61. So at least according to the OP, I could have downvoted (and I did).
But the other reason I thought our confidences were similar is that Marchdown put >80%, which I took to mean that eir confidence is greater than 80%.
Dark arts are very toxic, in the sense that you naturally and necessarily use any and all of your relevant beliefs to construct self-serving arguments on most occasions. Moreover, once you happen to successfully use some rationality technique in a self-serving manner, you become more prone to using it in such a way on future occasions. Thus, once you catch other people using dark arts and understand what’s going on, you are more likely to use the same tricks yourself. >80% sure (I don’t have an intuitive feeling for amounts of evidence, but here I would need at least 6dB of evidence to become uncertain).
I’m confused by the upvotes. (ETA: Parent was at +7 votes when I commented.) What do people disagree with?
The only controversial part for me is the use of certain words (in bold below), but these are minor disagreements that disappear under a charitable interpretation:
Otherwise, I believe the parent’s statements with high confidence (95%).
What a fun game! I notice that I’m somewhat confused, too. I see a couple of different approaches; maybe some of the upvoters would step in and explain themselves.
If getting upvotes for a comment here is something that would confuses you then you aren’t supposed to make the comment. The point is to make comments that you predict others will disagree/upvote despite you actually believing what you are saying.
I was confused about getting several upvotes quickly, but without prompting debate. I began wondering if my proposition pattern-matched something not as interesting to discuss.
That makes sense.
Your confidence is much higher than marchdown’s. You should have upvoted because you think he’s underconfident. Mind you I upvoted it myself because:
is definitely not true for me, as when I learn that I am subtly and subconsciously manipulating people, I stop doing it. And when I learn some trick to make people agree with me, I make sure I don’t do it.
Even when using 80% as Marchdown’s confidence, I didn’t feel that our confidences were much different, so I just calculated: the ln of our odds ratio is 1.56, whereas in the original rules, that for
is 1.61. So at least according to the OP, I could have downvoted (and I did).
But the other reason I thought our confidences were similar is that Marchdown put >80%, which I took to mean that eir confidence is greater than 80%.
Fair enough.