Paradrop

• Paradrop 4 Apr 2013 14:10 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: ModusPonies’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013)

  I can attest to Beeminder. If you’re able to read and send emails daily, you can use it.

• Paradrop 8 Nov 2011 12:44 UTC

  11 points

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Ra­tional Ro­man­tic Re­la­tion­ships, Part 1: Re­la­tion­ship Styles and At­trac­tion Basics

  I will respect properly written articles on almost any subject. Not these.

  One thing I demand from authors claiming to be supported by “science” is that they won’t make me stop thinking in mid read. The articles behind these links do not respect the reader’s opinion. Instead of making you think, they seek to shock, trump and convince. I’ve seen this style and these patterns before in articles about climate denial, xenophobia and religious fundamentalists. (Seriously, a lifestyle article is not a valid citation.)

  I’m not saying the author has not done his fair share of reading. I’m saying he should stop waving the “this is science”-sign with one hand and be clubbing down his readers with the other.

• Paradrop 8 Nov 2011 10:15 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: JoachimSchipper’s comment on: Ra­tional Ro­man­tic Re­la­tion­ships, Part 1: Re­la­tion­ship Styles and At­trac­tion Basics

  It’s probably hard to answer that accurately. I’ve read arguments about how commonplace polygamy and harems were and they usually go like this:

  a) Old sources rarely take interest in the lives of common men, but we know that society tolerated multiple wifes and households in extraordinary people.

  b) Household requires wealth. More households require more wealth.

  c) Common men could support one household at most, if any.

  d) Monogamy was de-facto standard (for economic reasons).

  Hope this helps.

• Paradrop 28 May 2011 15:52 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: Three Wor­lds Col­lide (0/​8)

  Damn you. ;-)

• Paradrop 28 May 2011 15:03 UTC

  3 points

  on: Three Wor­lds Col­lide (0/​8)

  I actually liked it. Here are my reasons:

  • I’m comfortable with the setting (I’ll call it “philosophy in space”)

  • The three worlds are intelligently designed (forgive the pun) and fit nicely together (from a dramatic point of view)

  • The stereotypical characters each play a nicely defined and important role

  • The main characters (Akon and the Confessor) develop nicely

  • There are two endings (I’m a sucker for choice :3 )

  • The differences between the future world and our present world are noticable and important to the plot (and not just decoration)

  Oh, and a good friend of mine recommended reading it. But that’s not a real reason, is it. ;-)