Basically, and I’m not all that clear on his point myself, but basically you can create the appearance of making a point, and look cool while doing it, if you express yourself with confident quirkiness and keep your statements as ambiguous, unexplained, and as obscure as possible. People will then pattern match whatever “revelation” they can into your words and then even give you credit for it!
For example, If I’m right, and I’m always right, Bartlefink proved hypercomputational phase warps in the predimensional wave-nurgle causes a condition whereby a tiny fraction of people use all words, obviously not codimensionally, as a rudimentary Schelling fence during periods of heightened causa sui political stress. Dasein!
Other anti-epistemological tricks include feeling justified in not understanding something if you make it look like your own ignorance and inability to read should be blamed on someone or something other than your own to-be-damned self.
LessWrong, you guys sucked at hermeneutics long before I decided to fuck with you about it—you sucked at it ever since you decided to adopt Eliezer’s flaws along with his strengths. (I guess that’s what happens if you’re not already a somewhat skilled rationalist before you try to learn rationality from a single guru. Not your fault, but, it is your fault if you get self-righteous about your own to-be-damned ignorance.) If you were smart you’d know how to read this comment as something other than a political attack, but you’re not, so you won’t. Wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to irrationality; the night is dark and full of bias.
By similar reasoning: If you were smart, and cared about results rather than mere signaling, and had reason to believe your advice was good, you would not phrase your advice as personal or political attacks.
(With this thread I have more-or-less successfully engaged various LessWrong folk in a clearly pointless signaling circle-jerk, with no redeeming value on the object level. (Weak) proof by example. Quod erat fucking demonstrandum.)
Can you expand/clarify your last point?
Basically, and I’m not all that clear on his point myself, but basically you can create the appearance of making a point, and look cool while doing it, if you express yourself with confident quirkiness and keep your statements as ambiguous, unexplained, and as obscure as possible. People will then pattern match whatever “revelation” they can into your words and then even give you credit for it!
For example, If I’m right, and I’m always right, Bartlefink proved hypercomputational phase warps in the predimensional wave-nurgle causes a condition whereby a tiny fraction of people use all words, obviously not codimensionally, as a rudimentary Schelling fence during periods of heightened causa sui political stress. Dasein!
It is a skill to not correct people when they mis-interprit you as having said something clever.
Other anti-epistemological tricks include feeling justified in not understanding something if you make it look like your own ignorance and inability to read should be blamed on someone or something other than your own to-be-damned self.
LessWrong, you guys sucked at hermeneutics long before I decided to fuck with you about it—you sucked at it ever since you decided to adopt Eliezer’s flaws along with his strengths. (I guess that’s what happens if you’re not already a somewhat skilled rationalist before you try to learn rationality from a single guru. Not your fault, but, it is your fault if you get self-righteous about your own to-be-damned ignorance.) If you were smart you’d know how to read this comment as something other than a political attack, but you’re not, so you won’t. Wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to irrationality; the night is dark and full of bias.
By similar reasoning: If you were smart, and cared about results rather than mere signaling, and had reason to believe your advice was good, you would not phrase your advice as personal or political attacks.
Signaling is its own reward. Cf. Sermon on the Mount. Mmmm, status. Snort that shit.
lol
:D
Don’t downvote this! It was a well-executed trolling don’t-feed-the-troll riposte! Such moves should be encouraged.
:D
(With this thread I have more-or-less successfully engaged various LessWrong folk in a clearly pointless signaling circle-jerk, with no redeeming value on the object level. (Weak) proof by example. Quod erat fucking demonstrandum.)
Nope.