ahartell

• ahartellFeb 17, 2013, 3:41 AM

  6 points

  in reply to: buybuydandavis’s comment on: LW Women: LW Online

  Who are they supposed to have learned that from? They sure as hell didn’t learn that from me. And every man I know wishes women were more to the point. The stereotype criticism is “blah blah blah”, not abruptness. If you’re in charge, make decisions, and give orders. I’ll salute, and we’ll get something done.

  No citations, but I’ve heard a lot of times that women in business positions are punished for being assertive or aggressive in situations where men are expected to do the same. I don’t know if this is true (I think it probably is), but either way I’ve definitely heard it enough times that it doesn’t surprise me that women would think they should try not to seem abrupt or bossy.

• ahartellFeb 16, 2013, 4:44 PM

  5 points

  in reply to: jooyous’s comment on: LW Women: LW Online

  To be honest, I’m surprised by the hostility of your comments here. I was bringing a hypothesis to your attention so that you could evaluate it. I suppose I could have read all of your comments but I don’t really care that much I guess. “I wonder” was meant to identify this as a passing thought. And in my second comment I updated away from the hypothesis, so I’m not sure why this tone would be present.

  I might be misreading it, but your last sentence sounds sort of fake-nice and passive aggressive due to the rest of the comment. I normally wouldn’t make an entire comment just about tone, and I actually like the tone on Lessswrong, but this conversation is sort of about it, and like I said, I was surprised.

• ahartellFeb 16, 2013, 8:51 AM

  2 points

  in reply to: jooyous’s comment on: LW Women: LW Online

  It doesn’t seem like that would be the case, no. I expected your alterations to have been deeper than that, including stuff like softening your disagreement.

• ahartellFeb 16, 2013, 7:25 AM

  1 point

  in reply to: jooyous’s comment on: LW Women: LW Online

  I wonder if your niceness padding has led to people missing your point and to you being frustrated by their failure to understand you.

• ahartellFeb 16, 2013, 2:22 AM

  0 points

  in reply to: Eugine_Nier’s comment on: LW Women: LW Online

  The problem is that the concept of “fairness” you are using there is incompatible with VHM-utilitarianism. (If somebody disagrees with this, please describe what the term in one’s utility function corresponding to fairness would look like.)

  People care about fairness, and get negative utility from feeling like they are being treated unfairly.

• ahartellFeb 15, 2013, 8:05 AM

  1 point

  in reply to: lucidian’s comment on: LW Women: LW Online

  I would tend towards the last two, I think, and wouldn’t find the forth to be rude (though it might depend on the nature and scale of the clarifications, with this method being most apt for smaller ones). However, I am one of those who likes the style of discussion on lesswrong.

• ahartellFeb 15, 2013, 7:55 AM

  6 points

  in reply to: jooyous’s comment on: LW Women: LW Online

  I feel like part of this is not acknowledging that quite a few people will experience non-fuzzy or anti-fuzzy feelings if they are disagreed with in a dismissive way. Or maybe when they feel like they are disagreed with in a dismissive way.

  I think that showing respect can stop disagreements from seeming like dismissals.

• ahartellFeb 11, 2013, 4:57 PM

  4 points

  in reply to: DaFranker’s comment on: LW Women- Crowd­sourced re­search on Cog­ni­tive bi­ases and gender

  Pedantry:

  If you score 70% in an exact, you are not very accurate. If that was the only exact on which you scored 70%...

  You mean “exam” here, I think.

  You’re right though.

• ahartellFeb 11, 2013, 11:06 AM

  2 points

  in reply to: Larks’s comment on: LW Women- Crowd­sourced re­search on Cog­ni­tive bi­ases and gender

  You seem to be confused about “the situation causing her nervousness” and how that relates to the mentioning of her previous experience at a party. I really don’t see how

  But her reason actually refers to a totally different situation!

  seems like strong evidence for the “cause” (I agree with what buybuydandavis says above about the use of the word in this situation) being the woman in question.

  It seems obvious to me that she has beliefs based on her experience at the party that make the elevator situation worrying. This is not a difference in type from, say, one’s beliefs about what a gun looks like informing one’s nervousness in a situation in which one sees a gun, and I think it would be pretty silly to say that one’s external situation was not the “cause” of one’s nervousness in that case.

• ahartellFeb 11, 2013, 9:54 AM

  10 points

  in reply to: Kawoomba’s comment on: LW Women- Crowd­sourced re­search on Cog­ni­tive bi­ases and gender

  Actually, I think that your analogy is apt. The only difference is that the priors on “someone says “four” whenever asked for a number” and “someone only says the word “four” are really low and the prior for “someone has some misogynist beliefs” is much higher.

  (Note that I am definitely not saying that shminux is a misogynist.)

• ahartellFeb 2, 2013, 8:10 PM

  2 points

  in reply to: Larks’s comment on: Fe­bru­ary 2013 Me­dia Thread

  I don’t think that would work if you tried (posting links to everything). It may naively seem like that is being incentivized but from my own intuitions about what I would do if someone did that and that fact that that hasn’t actually happened, I don’t think you need to be concerned.

• ahartellJan 29, 2013, 7:49 AM

  3 points

  in reply to: Qiaochu_Yuan’s comment on: Open Thread, Jan­uary 16-31, 2013

  I would.

• ahartellJan 23, 2013, 6:32 AM

  0 points

  in reply to: Nic_Smith’s comment on: Up­date on Kim Suozzi (can­cer pa­tient in want of cry­on­ics)

  Thanks, updated.

Up­date on Kim Suozzi (can­cer pa­tient in want of cry­on­ics)

• ahartellJan 18, 2013, 1:41 AM

  0 points

  in reply to: adhearn’s comment on: Is there an au­to­matic Chrome-to-Anki-2 ex­ten­sion or solu­tion?

  Thanks. This is exactly what I meant by “systemized.”

• ahartellJan 17, 2013, 5:18 AM

  2 points

  on: Open Thread, Jan­uary 16-31, 2013

  Does the list of all articles include posts in discussion? If not, is there another list that does? Finally, is there some interesting reason that it stops in August 2012, or is that just a result of people not updating it? Thanks.

• ahartellJan 16, 2013, 6:19 AM

  17 points

  on: Is there an au­to­matic Chrome-to-Anki-2 ex­ten­sion or solu­tion?

  More broadly, I’m interested in hearing about the workflow of those who use Anki or some alternative regularly. I’ve used it intermittently but never felt like I was using it very efficiently. It may be that making cards always feels like that and SR’s efficiency makes up for it but I’m curious to see how people have systemized the process if at all.

  Also, this probably belongs in the open thread.

• ahartellJan 16, 2013, 4:27 AM

  0 points

  in reply to: Zaine’s comment on: Sugges­tion: site-wide taboos

  Hah, thanks. So one cannot use the word to reference their own “subjective feeling” but can use it to reference others’?

  (Sidenote: If you’re right, I guess most of its usage here is incorrect, and perhaps misleading, but it seems like we’d be wrong in an silly, pedantic, “what silly rules for word” sort of way. We’d still be wrong though.)

• ahartellJan 16, 2013, 3:18 AM

  4 points

  on: Sugges­tion: site-wide taboos

  There was recently a discussion of Lesswrong’s use of the word “Signaling,” and it seemed to me that upon consideration it was shown that we’re pretty much using it to mean what it means in a broader academic context. See this comment in particular.

  With respect to the use of “affect,” I again disagree but there aren’t really any examples I can point to. I think its use in many cases is very similar to “emotion,” but I also think that its use fits pretty perfectly with your stated definition. For example, someone might say, “I have a really strong positive affect towards ponies, so my assessment of this fanfiction’s quality might be biased” (I have almost no idea why that is the example I thought of), and this fits pretty well with ” a subjective feeling experienced in response to a thought or other stimulus.”

  With “affect,” I think we might have “good reasons” for using the word, but I concede that its use isn’t really necessary and that its use probably is because people want “to seem Less Wrong-y.”

• ahartellJan 16, 2013, 3:07 AM

  6 points

  on: Sugges­tion: site-wide taboos

  Trivial point: Do you mean “Site-wide Taboos?” The current title is “side-wide taboos.”