One can do both, as in the case of OP who is both spreading the idea and also a claim about who deserves the credit for the idea.
(And credit is not neutral; if one hears that Darwin, rather than Eliezer or Hanson, coined a term or idea, one might go read Chronopause.com because of it and learn a great deal of things a cryonicists ought to know.)
One can do both, as in the case of OP who is both spreading the idea and also a claim about who deserves the credit for the idea.
I agree that ideally everyone should do both, but it seemed like advancedatheist was blaming LessWrong, Eliezer and Hanson for other people’s failure to give credit to the correct people. Attacking Eliezer for getting too much credit for spreading the idea of cryonics seems counterproductive to the goal spreading this idea (which I presume is an actual goal of the cryonics community advancedatheist is a part of).
(And credit is not neutral; if one hears that Darwin, rather than Eliezer or Hanson, coined a term or idea, one might go read Chronopause.com because of it and learn a great deal of things a cryonicists ought to know.)
I’m confused by your point here. Are you advocating that credit for an idea should go towards the most famous person possible, so it gets the most exposure? Isn’t this the very thing advancedatheist is complaining about?
I’m confused by your point here. Are you advocating that credit for an idea should go towards the most famous person possible, so it gets the most exposure?
My point here is that Eliezer gets read plenty on the topic of cryonics, perhaps more than he should, while people like Darwin get read too little, even by people who should be reading them. Allocating credit towards Eliezer and away from someone like Darwin exacerbates this.
My cryonics thesis was that if you think that any of the futures predicted by Kurzweil, Hanson, or Eliezer are plausible then you should sign up for cryonics.
Isn’t it better that the ideas get spread rather than who gets the credit?
One can do both, as in the case of OP who is both spreading the idea and also a claim about who deserves the credit for the idea.
(And credit is not neutral; if one hears that Darwin, rather than Eliezer or Hanson, coined a term or idea, one might go read Chronopause.com because of it and learn a great deal of things a cryonicists ought to know.)
I agree that ideally everyone should do both, but it seemed like advancedatheist was blaming LessWrong, Eliezer and Hanson for other people’s failure to give credit to the correct people. Attacking Eliezer for getting too much credit for spreading the idea of cryonics seems counterproductive to the goal spreading this idea (which I presume is an actual goal of the cryonics community advancedatheist is a part of).
I’m confused by your point here. Are you advocating that credit for an idea should go towards the most famous person possible, so it gets the most exposure? Isn’t this the very thing advancedatheist is complaining about?
My point here is that Eliezer gets read plenty on the topic of cryonics, perhaps more than he should, while people like Darwin get read too little, even by people who should be reading them. Allocating credit towards Eliezer and away from someone like Darwin exacerbates this.
My cryonics thesis was that if you think that any of the futures predicted by Kurzweil, Hanson, or Eliezer are plausible then you should sign up for cryonics.