That the exaggerated use of “rationality” is not rational.
That many of the contributors to LessWrong are regurgitating Yudkowsky and acting as disciples.
In human affairs there is seldom one right answer.
The certainty of numbers is misleading with that which cannot be measured.
Rationality cannot be achieved with a checklist or any other standardised form.
The discipline of being honest (whatever that means and the many years that takes) is more important than overcoming cognitive bias.
The calm of OB is more pleasant than the frantic commercialism of LW’s karmasystem.
All this religion-debate is completely uninteresting for Northern Europeans. America by day must be like Disneyland after Dark.
The average age of contributors to LW is 25. The average mental age is 15.
Only one contributor has emerged with the stature of Hanson and Yudkowsky.
A sense that less is possible.
I think there’s a strong impulse in many people here to idolize Eliezer, I know for myself that he’s one of the only persons, if not the only one, who manages to really awe me. The questions would be, does that go against the objective of building a rationalist community, do we want that community to begin with, and if the answer to those is yes, twice, then, what can we do, as aspiring rational gentlemen, to do better than so many failed communities that fell for X or Y such as cultish-ness or whatnot ?
I think we have our chance, and, like, a sense that more is indeed possible, regardless of what Eliezer or anyone else said.
Ditto for the karmasystem, it has much potential to degenerate into a vain collection of E-status.
The fact that his post “Don’t Believe You’ll Self-Deceive” currently holds only 3 points of Karma (it was made 6 days ago) is strong evidence that Eliezer isn’t as blindly worshiped as it may seem. It was a weak post, and the rating reflects that well.
I comment. People read. They vote up, I win, it must be looking like I’m rational (which is a good thing in a rationalist community). My status gets better. I like status, don’t you ?
At karma 20, I win even further, as I can post my own articles. Why shouldn’t I post as many comments as possible, to get there as soon as possible ? Like, in replying to my own comment, rather than editing it ? Or posting something pretty obvious wherever I can, even though it won’t significantly add anything ?
I am voted up or down, you see this, your own vote will be influenced (anchored).
I am amongst the first people to comment, others have more time to vote me up or down, amplifying the initial effect of the combined quality of my post and the biases of those judging it.
I comment later, quite a few people won’t bother sifting through 90 comments most of which they have been reading already, my post won’t be noticed.
That’s what I can think of on top of my head, pretty sure there’s more.
How can you object to the karma system when it isn’t explained anywhere? Until it is, it’s just mysterious numbers.
Someone figured out General Relativity without being given an explaination. I figured out the Karma system as well as give a reasonable interpretation of how it impacts me personally and the community in general.
I have all the information needed to object, were I so inclined.
Where do you get “commercialism”? There is no benefit from karma points after you get 20 and can post. I think you are confusing “status seeking” with “commercialism”. As an aside, I have noticed before that many socialistic weenies seem to equate everything they think bad with “commercialism” or “business”. Also, commercialism is superior to status seeking in that status seeking is a zero-sum game unlike free market economics.
But this is really a serious concern. Brushing it away with a comment along the lines of “Well, they also say that about obviously non-cultish figure X; how silly!” is like—like—well, um...
Still, how would we go about determining whether this accusation was true? I think that EY is a smart cookie who writes engagingly on an important topic that doesn’t get enough attention; is that in itself disciple-like behaviour, and if not how should we determine whether that’s enough to account for my behavour, or whether the additional disciple hypothesis is warranted?
Re: All this religion-debate is completely uninteresting for Northern Europeans.
Except for Richard Dawkins. He carries on as though theistic religion is still a live issue. I still don’t really understand that. The Dawkins gutter-outreach program. Maybe he spends too much time in the US?
Let’s not forget that the US isn’t the only place where religion is a problem. The Middle-East isn’t exactly a stable and enlightened place, for the most part.
I think that what Dawkins does it marvelous if only because he’s helping to break the taboo that religion is somehow above criticism and that the same standards that apply to everything don’t apply to it.
This helps people be rational about it; ie. being non-religious for the ‘good’ reasons, instead of for the same reasons why others are religious (was raised that way, inertia, social pressure, etc).
I think that it’s worth striking against religion in the US because it is so strong, and worth striking against it in the UK and Europe because it is so vulnerable.
That the exaggerated use of “rationality” is not rational. That many of the contributors to LessWrong are regurgitating Yudkowsky and acting as disciples. In human affairs there is seldom one right answer. The certainty of numbers is misleading with that which cannot be measured. Rationality cannot be achieved with a checklist or any other standardised form. The discipline of being honest (whatever that means and the many years that takes) is more important than overcoming cognitive bias. The calm of OB is more pleasant than the frantic commercialism of LW’s karmasystem. All this religion-debate is completely uninteresting for Northern Europeans. America by day must be like Disneyland after Dark. The average age of contributors to LW is 25. The average mental age is 15. Only one contributor has emerged with the stature of Hanson and Yudkowsky. A sense that less is possible.
I think there’s a strong impulse in many people here to idolize Eliezer, I know for myself that he’s one of the only persons, if not the only one, who manages to really awe me. The questions would be, does that go against the objective of building a rationalist community, do we want that community to begin with, and if the answer to those is yes, twice, then, what can we do, as aspiring rational gentlemen, to do better than so many failed communities that fell for X or Y such as cultish-ness or whatnot ?
I think we have our chance, and, like, a sense that more is indeed possible, regardless of what Eliezer or anyone else said.
Ditto for the karmasystem, it has much potential to degenerate into a vain collection of E-status.
I’m 25 too btw.
The fact that his post “Don’t Believe You’ll Self-Deceive” currently holds only 3 points of Karma (it was made 6 days ago) is strong evidence that Eliezer isn’t as blindly worshiped as it may seem. It was a weak post, and the rating reflects that well.
The opposite can be happening too, people may be over critical of EY
How can you object to the karma system when it isn’t explained anywhere? Until it is, it’s just mysterious numbers.
Give us a LR FAQ on karma, please.
I comment. People read. They vote up, I win, it must be looking like I’m rational (which is a good thing in a rationalist community). My status gets better. I like status, don’t you ?
At karma 20, I win even further, as I can post my own articles. Why shouldn’t I post as many comments as possible, to get there as soon as possible ? Like, in replying to my own comment, rather than editing it ? Or posting something pretty obvious wherever I can, even though it won’t significantly add anything ?
I am voted up or down, you see this, your own vote will be influenced (anchored).
I am amongst the first people to comment, others have more time to vote me up or down, amplifying the initial effect of the combined quality of my post and the biases of those judging it.
I comment later, quite a few people won’t bother sifting through 90 comments most of which they have been reading already, my post won’t be noticed.
That’s what I can think of on top of my head, pretty sure there’s more.
Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
This seems like the relevant question.
I strongly suspect the karma system is “very similar” to reddit’s karma system.
Plus, you know, LW is open source, so if you were really curious, you could find out exactly how it works.
Someone figured out General Relativity without being given an explaination. I figured out the Karma system as well as give a reasonable interpretation of how it impacts me personally and the community in general.
I have all the information needed to object, were I so inclined.
Where do you get “commercialism”? There is no benefit from karma points after you get 20 and can post. I think you are confusing “status seeking” with “commercialism”. As an aside, I have noticed before that many socialistic weenies seem to equate everything they think bad with “commercialism” or “business”. Also, commercialism is superior to status seeking in that status seeking is a zero-sum game unlike free market economics.
Ironically, Paul Graham gets exactly the same accusations on Hacker News.
But this is really a serious concern. Brushing it away with a comment along the lines of “Well, they also say that about obviously non-cultish figure X; how silly!” is like—like—well, um...
--failing to pump against entropy, as it is written that “Every Cause Wants to Be a Cult.”
Downvoted.
Still, how would we go about determining whether this accusation was true? I think that EY is a smart cookie who writes engagingly on an important topic that doesn’t get enough attention; is that in itself disciple-like behaviour, and if not how should we determine whether that’s enough to account for my behavour, or whether the additional disciple hypothesis is warranted?
Re: All this religion-debate is completely uninteresting for Northern Europeans.
Except for Richard Dawkins. He carries on as though theistic religion is still a live issue. I still don’t really understand that. The Dawkins gutter-outreach program. Maybe he spends too much time in the US?
Let’s not forget that the US isn’t the only place where religion is a problem. The Middle-East isn’t exactly a stable and enlightened place, for the most part.
I think that what Dawkins does it marvelous if only because he’s helping to break the taboo that religion is somehow above criticism and that the same standards that apply to everything don’t apply to it.
This helps people be rational about it; ie. being non-religious for the ‘good’ reasons, instead of for the same reasons why others are religious (was raised that way, inertia, social pressure, etc).
I think that it’s worth striking against religion in the US because it is so strong, and worth striking against it in the UK and Europe because it is so vulnerable.