This is a generally constructive comment. One bit left me confused, and I wonder if you can unpack what it means?
I am subtracting karma from everyone who gave Nate points for writing a long introspective gdoc. You guys should’ve assumed that it would be a steep misfire.
What was the misfire? (I mean literally what does ‘it’ stand for in this sentence?) Also, what kind of points and karma are we talking about, presumably metaphorical?
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BGLu3iCGjjcSaeeBG/related-discussion-from-thomas-kwa-s-miri-research?commentId=fPz6jxjybp4Zmn2CK This brief subthread can be read as “giving nate points for trying” and is too credulous about if “introspection” actually works—my wild background guess is that roughly 60% of the time “introspection” is more “elaborate self-delusion” than working as intended, and there are times when someone saying “no but I’m trying really hard to be good at it” drives that probability up instead of down. I didn’t think this was one of those times before reading Kurt’s comment. A more charitable view is that this prickliness (understatement) is something that’s getting triage’d out / deprioritized, not gymnastically dodged, but I think it’s unreasonable to ask people to pay attention to the difference.
That’s besides the point: the “it” was just the gdoc. “it would be a steep misfire” would mean “the gdoc tries to talk about the situation and totally does not address what matters”. The subtraction of karma was metaphorical (I don’t think I even officially voted on lesswrong!). I want to emphasize that I’m still very weak, cuz for instance I can expect people in that subthread to later tell me a detailed inside view about how giving Nate points for trying (by writing that doc) doesn’t literally mean that they were drawn into this “if von neumann has to scream at me to be productive, then it would be selfish to set a personal boundary” take, but I think it’s reasonable for me to be suspicious and cautious and look for more evidence that people would not fall for this class of “holding some people to different standards for for-the-greater-good reasons” again.
This is a generally constructive comment. One bit left me confused, and I wonder if you can unpack what it means?
What was the misfire? (I mean literally what does ‘it’ stand for in this sentence?) Also, what kind of points and karma are we talking about, presumably metaphorical?
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BGLu3iCGjjcSaeeBG/related-discussion-from-thomas-kwa-s-miri-research?commentId=fPz6jxjybp4Zmn2CK This brief subthread can be read as “giving nate points for trying” and is too credulous about if “introspection” actually works—my wild background guess is that roughly 60% of the time “introspection” is more “elaborate self-delusion” than working as intended, and there are times when someone saying “no but I’m trying really hard to be good at it” drives that probability up instead of down. I didn’t think this was one of those times before reading Kurt’s comment. A more charitable view is that this prickliness (understatement) is something that’s getting triage’d out / deprioritized, not gymnastically dodged, but I think it’s unreasonable to ask people to pay attention to the difference.
That’s besides the point: the “it” was just the gdoc. “it would be a steep misfire” would mean “the gdoc tries to talk about the situation and totally does not address what matters”. The subtraction of karma was metaphorical (I don’t think I even officially voted on lesswrong!). I want to emphasize that I’m still very weak, cuz for instance I can expect people in that subthread to later tell me a detailed inside view about how giving Nate points for trying (by writing that doc) doesn’t literally mean that they were drawn into this “if von neumann has to scream at me to be productive, then it would be selfish to set a personal boundary” take, but I think it’s reasonable for me to be suspicious and cautious and look for more evidence that people would not fall for this class of “holding some people to different standards for for-the-greater-good reasons” again.