It’s impossible to have “good faith” as a rationalist. I have an accurate understanding of LW, and if voicing that understanding as a prediction and being slightly snarky about it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, so be it.
Others here contest that your understanding is accurate. Please recognize that you cannot fairly expect us to take the assertion that you are right and we are wrong as given.
People occasionally come here and make criticisms of ideas accepted by the in-group here, and are heavily upvoted for bringing well-formulated criticisms to the table (the highest voted post on Less Wrong is an example,) and some posters such as XiXiDu have gotten most of their karma in this way.
On other occasions, people come here and argue, for instance, that we should all reject Bayesianism because Popper proved induction is impossible, or that mainstream physics is completely wrong and science should be about making descriptions of the world that make intuitive sense rather than making accurate predictions about reality. And they argue fiercely that their poor reception is proof of how bad we are at evaluating ideas that challenge in-group beliefs.
Now, maybe we are rejecting key arguments of yours because we’re too biased, and you are completely right about these matters and we are wrong (I do not think this is the case, of course, while you have made it clear that you think it is,) but if you just come out and say as much in those words, then it should be no surprise if people start pattern matching you as a crank rather than a valuable contributor of outside ideas.
If, as a rationalist, you want to win, (and you’ve said before that feminism is your thing to protect,) then engaging in self fulfilling prophesies about your own poor reception is a bad idea. Seriously, really really try not to do that, unless you’re not actually trying to encourage people to oppose patriarchy, and are just venting or trying to try.
People occasionally come here and make criticisms of ideas accepted by the in-group here, and are heavily upvoted for bringing well-formulated criticisms to the table (the highest voted post on Less Wrong is an example,) and some posters such as XiXiDu have gotten most of their karma in this way.
Please do not introduce new people-who-are-displaying-trollish-behavior to XiXiDu as a role model.
People occasionally come here and make criticisms of ideas accepted by the in-group here, and are heavily upvoted for bringing well-formulated criticisms to the table (the highest voted post on Less Wrong is an example,) and some posters such as XiXiDu have gotten most of their karma in this way.
These are always the equivalent of small quibbles within the meme pool that is already accepted, not arguing for something totally outside that set (like feminism, or leftist politics, or in general social-constructivist hypotheses rather than biological hypotheses.
then engaging in self fulfilling prophesies about your own poor reception is a bad idea.
No, because the expected utility of wasting time on less wrong is negative to begin with. I don’t think anything I say could convince anyone of feminist politics. The strategies I think will win in politics have nothing to do with comments on a message board.
No, because the expected utility of wasting time on less wrong is negative to begin with. I don’t think anything I say could convince anyone of feminist politics.
....Then why are you doing it?
I’ve been bothering to engage with you at all out of a (waning) unwillingness to write you off as an unreasonable person incapable of holding a conversation with people you disagree with that leads to any productive conclusions. You started this conversation professing a conviction that everyone else here was too biased and irrational to engage with you, and you would simply be jumped on without consideration, and you have by all appearances become even more entrenched in that position. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I started participating out of the belief that there was a fair chance you were a largely reasonable person who held some positions I disagreed with, and through civil discussion one or both of us could learn something and change our minds. I have become convinced that I was mistaken, so I’m not going to engage with you any more.
So why are you, who have professed to believe that this was pointless all along, still bothering?
Wei_Dai is mostly correct—I sometimes have downtime during the day, and I think it’s moderately better for me to spend two or five minutes composing a counter-argument about feminism on less wrong than it is for me to spend that time looking at funny pictures on Reddit.
LW is almost entirely men, and men get very prickly when confronted with the concept of gender privilege, so my probability of success was virtually zero from the start, and almost certainly that given that I’m unwilling to do the requisite amount of hand-holding that you really have to do to get men to admit that there might be a point to feminism.
This whole meta-line has been incredibly boring, I have to say.
I’m unwilling to do the requisite amount of hand-holding that you really have to do to get men to admit that there might be a point to feminism.
To be fair, your task is much more difficult, since you’re attempting to convert us men to radical feminism, specifically. Thus, you must overcome not only our innate desire to keep our privilege, but also the efforts of liberal feminists who explicitly deny some of your claims.
Speaking as a non-feminist (radical or otherwise) man, though, I must say that I find your description of your views to be clear and coherent, which is a lot more than I can say for other sources. Thus, even though you may never convert me personally, I think you do have a non-zero chance of converting others.
Others here contest that your understanding is accurate. Please recognize that you cannot fairly expect us to take the assertion that you are right and we are wrong as given.
People occasionally come here and make criticisms of ideas accepted by the in-group here, and are heavily upvoted for bringing well-formulated criticisms to the table (the highest voted post on Less Wrong is an example,) and some posters such as XiXiDu have gotten most of their karma in this way.
On other occasions, people come here and argue, for instance, that we should all reject Bayesianism because Popper proved induction is impossible, or that mainstream physics is completely wrong and science should be about making descriptions of the world that make intuitive sense rather than making accurate predictions about reality. And they argue fiercely that their poor reception is proof of how bad we are at evaluating ideas that challenge in-group beliefs.
Now, maybe we are rejecting key arguments of yours because we’re too biased, and you are completely right about these matters and we are wrong (I do not think this is the case, of course, while you have made it clear that you think it is,) but if you just come out and say as much in those words, then it should be no surprise if people start pattern matching you as a crank rather than a valuable contributor of outside ideas.
If, as a rationalist, you want to win, (and you’ve said before that feminism is your thing to protect,) then engaging in self fulfilling prophesies about your own poor reception is a bad idea. Seriously, really really try not to do that, unless you’re not actually trying to encourage people to oppose patriarchy, and are just venting or trying to try.
Please do not introduce new people-who-are-displaying-trollish-behavior to XiXiDu as a role model.
These are always the equivalent of small quibbles within the meme pool that is already accepted, not arguing for something totally outside that set (like feminism, or leftist politics, or in general social-constructivist hypotheses rather than biological hypotheses.
No, because the expected utility of wasting time on less wrong is negative to begin with. I don’t think anything I say could convince anyone of feminist politics. The strategies I think will win in politics have nothing to do with comments on a message board.
....Then why are you doing it?
I’ve been bothering to engage with you at all out of a (waning) unwillingness to write you off as an unreasonable person incapable of holding a conversation with people you disagree with that leads to any productive conclusions. You started this conversation professing a conviction that everyone else here was too biased and irrational to engage with you, and you would simply be jumped on without consideration, and you have by all appearances become even more entrenched in that position. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I started participating out of the belief that there was a fair chance you were a largely reasonable person who held some positions I disagreed with, and through civil discussion one or both of us could learn something and change our minds. I have become convinced that I was mistaken, so I’m not going to engage with you any more.
So why are you, who have professed to believe that this was pointless all along, still bothering?
In one of the comments Eliezer banned, which you can still see here, eridu said:
Wei_Dai is mostly correct—I sometimes have downtime during the day, and I think it’s moderately better for me to spend two or five minutes composing a counter-argument about feminism on less wrong than it is for me to spend that time looking at funny pictures on Reddit.
LW is almost entirely men, and men get very prickly when confronted with the concept of gender privilege, so my probability of success was virtually zero from the start, and almost certainly that given that I’m unwilling to do the requisite amount of hand-holding that you really have to do to get men to admit that there might be a point to feminism.
This whole meta-line has been incredibly boring, I have to say.
To be fair, your task is much more difficult, since you’re attempting to convert us men to radical feminism, specifically. Thus, you must overcome not only our innate desire to keep our privilege, but also the efforts of liberal feminists who explicitly deny some of your claims.
Speaking as a non-feminist (radical or otherwise) man, though, I must say that I find your description of your views to be clear and coherent, which is a lot more than I can say for other sources. Thus, even though you may never convert me personally, I think you do have a non-zero chance of converting others.