Over 1000 people took the test. Statistically speaking, it should have included about 50 sociopaths.
Do you have statistics about how many sociopaths take extra-long online tests or how many sociopaths frequent rationalist forums? Or are you just talking about the percentage of sociopaths in the general population?
As a sidenote one would think that people willing to lie about their IQ would be positively correlated with people that look up Bayes’ birthdate before filling in their ‘estimation’. Anyone making a statistical analysis regarding this?
LessWrong is going to eat you alive, honey.
Downvoted for this statement and overall unnecessary rude tone.
I agree with that article and that’s exactly why I downvoted you. You were contemptuously calling someone ‘honey’ and behaving like an all-around dick that smirks at newcomers and warns them that the rest of us will chew them up. That’s not what I want to see belong here and I won’t be a pacifist about it when you’re behaving like a weed.
I agree with that article and that’s exactly why I downvoted you.
I read the article again very carefully, trying to figure out whether Eliezer was advocating weeding people for behaving the way that I did. The article is about keeping “fools” out of the “garden of intelligent discussion”. It says nothing about the tone of posts and what tones should be weeded.
contemptuously calling someone ‘honey’
Actually, that was intended to make the tone friendlier. I acknowledge that this is not the way that you perceived it. My feeling is not contempt. I just don’t think he is likely to contribute constructively.
behaving like an all-around dick that smirks at newcomers and warns them that the rest of us will chew them up
I like newcomers. The sole problem here was that about half of what this specific newcomer said was irrational.
I won’t be a pacifist about it when you’re behaving like a weed.
That is exactly how I felt when I saw alfredmacdonald posting a bunch of irrational thoughts in this place for rationality. Are we both doing something wrong, then? The tone of your last comment doesn’t look any different to me than the tone of my comments. Is it that you feel that using a tone like this is never justified and we’ve both made a mistake or is it that you believe it’s okay to speak like this to people you feel are rude, but not to people you think are being irrational?
Is it that you feel that using a tone like this is never justified and we’ve both made a mistake or is it that you believe it’s okay to speak like this to people you feel are rude
I speak to you like this because the simple explanation of “I downvoted you for excessive rudeness” doesn’t seem to satisfy you, to the point that you keep asking me for further clarification (and re-asked me when I ignored your first question). So I have to change my tone, because though the repetition of the same clarification “I downvoted you for excessive rudeness” should be adequate, you don’t get it.
Let me mention that I won’t continue discussing this, and if you continue pestering me you’ll be incentivize me to not offer any clarification at all for future downvotes towards your person, to just downvote you without explanation.
I see that you’re not interested in discussing the original issue that started this. I know that everyone has limited energy, so I accept this. It feels important to mention that none of my comments were written with an intent to pester you. I am not disagreeing with you about how you experienced them—different people experience things differently. I only mean to tell you that I did not intend to cause you this experience.
My intent was to understand your point of view better to see if our disagreement over whether a cold tone is justified for the purpose of garden-keeping would be resolved or if I would learn anything.
I hope you can see that despite our disagreement about how to protect the quality of the discussion area, we both care about whether the quality of the discussion area is good, and are willing to take action to protect it. I am not trying to troll; this wasn’t for “lulz”. I am doing it because I care. We have that one thing in common.
For this reason, I would prefer to use a friendly or neutral tone with you in the future. You may or may not be interested in putting this difference aside in order to have smoother interactions in the future, but I am willing to, so I invite you to do the same.
Do you have statistics about how many sociopaths take extra-long online tests …
The verbiage “statistically speaking” was supposed to imply an acknowledgement that I know that the statistics were based on the overall population, not the specific context.
As a sidenote one would think that people willing to lie about their IQ would be positively correlated with people that look up Bayes’ birthdate before filling in their ‘estimation’. Anyone making a statistical analysis regarding this?
Ooh. This is a very, very good point. And if the survey participants really wanted to look gifted, they’d have probably decided that fudging the Bayes question was a necessity. I added your thought to my IQ accuracy comment. Upvote.
Downvoted for this statement and overall unnecessary rude tone.
Thank you for explaining your downvote.
Is it that you disagree with Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism or that you do this in a different way? If you have some different method, what is it?
Note: It’s probably inevitable that someone will ask me why I seem to agree with the spirit of this article, if I don’t believe in “elitism”. My answer is, succinctly, that humans seek like-minded people to hang out with, that this is part of fulfilling one’s social needs, and that it’s silly to allow our attempt to get basic needs met to be politicized and called “elitism” just because we gather around intellectualism when it is no different from the desire of a single mom to spend some time out with adults because children can’t have the same conversations or the desire of hunting-minded people to engage in activities without vegetarians harping on them (or vice versa).
Do you have statistics about how many sociopaths take extra-long online tests or how many sociopaths frequent rationalist forums? Or are you just talking about the percentage of sociopaths in the general population?
As a sidenote one would think that people willing to lie about their IQ would be positively correlated with people that look up Bayes’ birthdate before filling in their ‘estimation’. Anyone making a statistical analysis regarding this?
Downvoted for this statement and overall unnecessary rude tone.
Perhaps you became busy or something and did not have a chance to respond to my comment, but I am still curious about this:
I agree with that article and that’s exactly why I downvoted you. You were contemptuously calling someone ‘honey’ and behaving like an all-around dick that smirks at newcomers and warns them that the rest of us will chew them up. That’s not what I want to see belong here and I won’t be a pacifist about it when you’re behaving like a weed.
I read the article again very carefully, trying to figure out whether Eliezer was advocating weeding people for behaving the way that I did. The article is about keeping “fools” out of the “garden of intelligent discussion”. It says nothing about the tone of posts and what tones should be weeded.
Actually, that was intended to make the tone friendlier. I acknowledge that this is not the way that you perceived it. My feeling is not contempt. I just don’t think he is likely to contribute constructively.
I like newcomers. The sole problem here was that about half of what this specific newcomer said was irrational.
That is exactly how I felt when I saw alfredmacdonald posting a bunch of irrational thoughts in this place for rationality. Are we both doing something wrong, then? The tone of your last comment doesn’t look any different to me than the tone of my comments. Is it that you feel that using a tone like this is never justified and we’ve both made a mistake or is it that you believe it’s okay to speak like this to people you feel are rude, but not to people you think are being irrational?
I speak to you like this because the simple explanation of “I downvoted you for excessive rudeness” doesn’t seem to satisfy you, to the point that you keep asking me for further clarification (and re-asked me when I ignored your first question). So I have to change my tone, because though the repetition of the same clarification “I downvoted you for excessive rudeness” should be adequate, you don’t get it.
Let me mention that I won’t continue discussing this, and if you continue pestering me you’ll be incentivize me to not offer any clarification at all for future downvotes towards your person, to just downvote you without explanation.
I see that you’re not interested in discussing the original issue that started this. I know that everyone has limited energy, so I accept this. It feels important to mention that none of my comments were written with an intent to pester you. I am not disagreeing with you about how you experienced them—different people experience things differently. I only mean to tell you that I did not intend to cause you this experience.
My intent was to understand your point of view better to see if our disagreement over whether a cold tone is justified for the purpose of garden-keeping would be resolved or if I would learn anything.
I hope you can see that despite our disagreement about how to protect the quality of the discussion area, we both care about whether the quality of the discussion area is good, and are willing to take action to protect it. I am not trying to troll; this wasn’t for “lulz”. I am doing it because I care. We have that one thing in common.
For this reason, I would prefer to use a friendly or neutral tone with you in the future. You may or may not be interested in putting this difference aside in order to have smoother interactions in the future, but I am willing to, so I invite you to do the same.
What do you say?
The verbiage “statistically speaking” was supposed to imply an acknowledgement that I know that the statistics were based on the overall population, not the specific context.
Ooh. This is a very, very good point. And if the survey participants really wanted to look gifted, they’d have probably decided that fudging the Bayes question was a necessity. I added your thought to my IQ accuracy comment. Upvote.
Thank you for explaining your downvote.
Is it that you disagree with Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism or that you do this in a different way? If you have some different method, what is it?
Note: It’s probably inevitable that someone will ask me why I seem to agree with the spirit of this article, if I don’t believe in “elitism”. My answer is, succinctly, that humans seek like-minded people to hang out with, that this is part of fulfilling one’s social needs, and that it’s silly to allow our attempt to get basic needs met to be politicized and called “elitism” just because we gather around intellectualism when it is no different from the desire of a single mom to spend some time out with adults because children can’t have the same conversations or the desire of hunting-minded people to engage in activities without vegetarians harping on them (or vice versa).