Although note that in that case, although Will did find a coherent way of getting that sort of probability, if anything it underscores that Thomas’s essential point there was correct: My probability estimate in that context was at best weird and more likely just poorly thought out, probably because of overcorrecting my overconfidence.
I didn’t say JushuaZ downvoted me. But having a discussion with him is bad for my karma points when we don’t completely agree.
Why is that? I don’t know, but I have a crazy (somewhat weak and wild) theory about that.
Long ago he provided a link to a real story from his life, how he gave a bitter lesson to some math teachers about 22⁄7 is NOT equal to Pi.
It’s hilarious, I mean really hilarious. But people here were intimidated by this and since think he must be always right and downvote anybody who dares to oppose him even slightly.
I think it is much, much more likely that the topics on which you argue with JoshuaZ happen to be ones on which your opinions, or patterns of thought, or modes of expression, are not highly regarded by other LW participants.
(FWIW, I’ve downvoted several of your comments, none of them in this thread so far, and I haven’t the faintest recollection of whether any of them were replies to JoshuaZ. I basically cannot imagine downvoting someone for disagreeing with someone who once upon a time posted an intimidatingly funny anecdote about showing up a foolish mathematics teacher.)
I wasn’t saying that you were saying he downvoted you, I was just saying that from context it seems to me that there’s an apparent reason why you might have been downvoted which merely coincided with the fact that you were responding to JoshuaZ, rather than having a causal relation to that fact.
In that case, I would guess you were downvoted either by Will Sawin, or (more likely,) one of the people who upvoted him for correcting you.
Although note that in that case, although Will did find a coherent way of getting that sort of probability, if anything it underscores that Thomas’s essential point there was correct: My probability estimate in that context was at best weird and more likely just poorly thought out, probably because of overcorrecting my overconfidence.
I didn’t say JushuaZ downvoted me. But having a discussion with him is bad for my karma points when we don’t completely agree.
Why is that? I don’t know, but I have a crazy (somewhat weak and wild) theory about that.
Long ago he provided a link to a real story from his life, how he gave a bitter lesson to some math teachers about 22⁄7 is NOT equal to Pi.
It’s hilarious, I mean really hilarious. But people here were intimidated by this and since think he must be always right and downvote anybody who dares to oppose him even slightly.
I think it is much, much more likely that the topics on which you argue with JoshuaZ happen to be ones on which your opinions, or patterns of thought, or modes of expression, are not highly regarded by other LW participants.
(FWIW, I’ve downvoted several of your comments, none of them in this thread so far, and I haven’t the faintest recollection of whether any of them were replies to JoshuaZ. I basically cannot imagine downvoting someone for disagreeing with someone who once upon a time posted an intimidatingly funny anecdote about showing up a foolish mathematics teacher.)
You make a lot of ridiculous, badly argued comments. This and each of your linked responses to JoshuaZ were worth downvoting.
I wasn’t saying that you were saying he downvoted you, I was just saying that from context it seems to me that there’s an apparent reason why you might have been downvoted which merely coincided with the fact that you were responding to JoshuaZ, rather than having a causal relation to that fact.