When Scott pointed out (for the first time, AFAICT) that Vassar is a dangerous person in the orbit of this community, it was the second report about such a person in as many weeks. This doesn’t look to me like a pair of isolated incidents. It looks like part of a pattern.
Therefore, while your technique sounds like a good one in isolation, I suspect you’re encouraging your overwhelmingly neurodivergent audience to double down on their inherent flaws, making these worse. (Another clue here is the fact that actions which could be ‘justified’ under very different models could be dishonest, or they could be plain old expected value maximization.) The added suggestion to think of an experiment to distinguish between hypotheses—indeed, the idea of doing anything at all—is a good addition.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1368966115804598275.html
When Scott pointed out (for the first time, AFAICT) that Vassar is a dangerous person in the orbit of this community, it was the second report about such a person in as many weeks. This doesn’t look to me like a pair of isolated incidents. It looks like part of a pattern.
Therefore, while your technique sounds like a good one in isolation, I suspect you’re encouraging your overwhelmingly neurodivergent audience to double down on their inherent flaws, making these worse. (Another clue here is the fact that actions which could be ‘justified’ under very different models could be dishonest, or they could be plain old expected value maximization.) The added suggestion to think of an experiment to distinguish between hypotheses—indeed, the idea of doing anything at all—is a good addition.
I tried to read that link. I really did. I “read” like 10 paragraphs, and skimmed further down than that… but I gave up.
I’m interested in what you have to say. Mind providing a summary in… well punctuated, concise English?
I just summarized part of it, and was downvoted for doing so. Have you tried to correct that and encourage me numerically?