I write with the assumption that no one presumes Eliezer is infallible. And that everyone understands enough of human psychology that it would be very unlikely for anyone to write a long essay with dozens of points completely flawlessly and without error. Hence I wrote the first post as a helpful critique, which seems to be common enough on LW.
If some people truly believe even the most straightforward and frank questioning of weak assertions, with no beating around the bush at all, is ‘nitpicking’ then that’s on them. If you truly believe that then that’s on you.
If anyone actually had an expectation of no critique allowed they’d be just blindly upvoting without regard for being Less Wrong, which would seem fairly silly since everybody here seems like they can write coherent comments and thus understand that appeals to authority are a fallacious argument.
But given that I got at least 7 downvotes, that may sadly be the case. Or some trolls, etc., just downvote the first comment on a reflex basis.
EDIT: Or the downvotes could be folks thinking my comment was too direct, etc., though that would seem to contradict the fact that ‘lc’ got 28 upvotes for saying it wasn’t clear enough in being a criticism of the points?
This is by far the oddest distribution of votes I have ever seen in comment replies.
I had tried writing a point relating to possible social status considerations originally but edited it out as it would seem unfair as a direct reply.
It’s still disappointing anyone would at all instead of posting a substantive response. Ironically, if any of them had looked through my comment history they would have realized how unlikely it was to cow me via social status signalling. Thankfully they didn’t pick an easier target.
And lc‘s apparent doubling down reinforces how silly it all looks.
Social signalling is usually the reserve of those without much in way of substantive prospects so it‘s unfortunate that the community has attracted a few members who feels so strongly about it to use their downvotes on the first comment in a post most likely to arouse suspicions of that.
Since those with productive intentions can write openly, including the majority on LW, I’m fairly convinced the portion with unproductive goals can only ever be temporary.
It’s quite pleasant to see through all layers of dissimulation and sophistry. Certainly more interesting than the usual. And the time savings in not having to remember half truths, empty flatteries, etc., enable intelligent writing with a fraction of the time.
I write with the assumption that no one presumes Eliezer is infallible. And that everyone understands enough of human psychology that it would be very unlikely for anyone to write a long essay with dozens of points completely flawlessly and without error. Hence I wrote the first post as a helpful critique, which seems to be common enough on LW.
If some people truly believe even the most straightforward and frank questioning of weak assertions, with no beating around the bush at all, is ‘nitpicking’ then that’s on them. If you truly believe that then that’s on you.
If anyone actually had an expectation of no critique allowed they’d be just blindly upvoting without regard for being Less Wrong, which would seem fairly silly since everybody here seems like they can write coherent comments and thus understand that appeals to authority are a fallacious argument.
But given that I got at least 7 downvotes, that may sadly be the case. Or some trolls, etc., just downvote the first comment on a reflex basis.
EDIT: Or the downvotes could be folks thinking my comment was too direct, etc., though that would seem to contradict the fact that ‘lc’ got 28 upvotes for saying it wasn’t clear enough in being a criticism of the points?
This is by far the oddest distribution of votes I have ever seen in comment replies.
Votes related to posts by the leader of a community are unavoidably influenced by status considerations by a notable fraction of the audience.
Yes, upon reflection I agree.
I had tried writing a point relating to possible social status considerations originally but edited it out as it would seem unfair as a direct reply.
It’s still disappointing anyone would at all instead of posting a substantive response. Ironically, if any of them had looked through my comment history they would have realized how unlikely it was to cow me via social status signalling. Thankfully they didn’t pick an easier target.
And lc‘s apparent doubling down reinforces how silly it all looks.
Social signalling is usually the reserve of those without much in way of substantive prospects so it‘s unfortunate that the community has attracted a few members who feels so strongly about it to use their downvotes on the first comment in a post most likely to arouse suspicions of that.
Since those with productive intentions can write openly, including the majority on LW, I’m fairly convinced the portion with unproductive goals can only ever be temporary.
It happened to me too when I was a newbie. Interesting lesson.
It’s quite pleasant to see through all layers of dissimulation and sophistry. Certainly more interesting than the usual. And the time savings in not having to remember half truths, empty flatteries, etc., enable intelligent writing with a fraction of the time.