I am new and a moderator already made a clearly irrational action against me and I am dumbfounded. I mean to present a very difficult subject that no one else can present, and I did so perfectly and in the only way possible and the moderator moderated the attempt out of existence.
Doesn’t irrationality run counter to this site’s stated mission?
To be clear, I am presenting the most important topic in the world, with the assumption that it is probably significant and correct because it’s John Nash’s (most significant) work.
Why is Less Wrong censoring out Nash’s work and implying that it is irrational?
I’m the person that moved Flinter’s post to drafts, suggesting that he resubmit it as a linkpost to Nash’s talk and put his commentary in a comment, instead of the primary post.
It’s not Nash’s most significant work, and it is not the most important topic in the world. Those sorts of statements are a major contributor to why I thought the post was bad.
(In case people are wondering if I’m politically motivated, Hayek, a person who Nash describes as thinking parallel thoughts, is my favorite political thinker. This is policing post quality, not content.)
Is it possible to use moderation tools to hide the parent comment or move it. It doesn’t even belong here and others have been nice enough to offer good feedback regardless. This is a welcome thread, and it’s being derailed with bizarre behavior.
Sadly, the only direct tool I have is comment deletion, which rather than pruning or hiding the tree below it replaces it with a box that says “Comment Deleted” and its children in place. I could ask Grothor to make a new intro thread, and then delete or draft this thread.
You wrote something provocative but provided no arguments or explanations or examples or anything. That’s why it’s low-quality. It doesn’t matter how good your idea is if you don’t bother to do any legwork to show anyone else. I for one have no why your idea would and don’t care to do work to figure it out because the only reason I have to do work is that you said so.
Also, you might want to tackle something more concrete than “all these difficult observations and problems”. First, it’s definitely true that your ‘solution’ doesn’t solve all the problems. Maybe it helps with some. So which ones? Talk about those.
Also, your writing is exhaustingly vague (“I also value compression and time in this sense, and so I think I can propose a subject that might serve as an “ideal introduction” (I have an accurate meaning for this phrase I won’t introduce atm).”). This is really hard not to lose interest in while reading, and it’s only two random sample sentences.
Re http://lesswrong.com/lw/ogt/do_we_share_a_definition_for_the_word_ideal/,
you’re going to have to do more work to make an interesting discussion. It’s not like “Oh, Flinter, good point, you and (all of us) might have different meanings for ‘ideal’!” is going to happen. It’s on you to show why this is interesting. What made you think the meanings are different? What different results come from that? What’s your definition? What do you think other peoples’ are, and why are they worse?
I agree with Vaniver that those two posts in their current form should have been at least heavily downvoted. Though that doesn’t happen much in practice here since traffic is low. I’m not sure what the removal policy is but I guess it probably applied.
Also, if you keep writing things like “No, you can’t give me feedback. It’s above you. I have come here to explain it to you. I made 3 threads, and they are equally important.” you’re going to be banned for being an ass, no question. You’re also wildly incorrect, but that’s another matter.
Don’t be too upset about a mod moving your post. You just need to get a bit more familiar with the site rules before you dive in. I’m sure it’s nothing to do with their views on John Nash. If I made a post about how much I love Terry Pratchett, a mod would take it down for being irrelevant, but that wouldn’t mean they necessarily disapproved of Terry Pratchett, would it?
Maybe take a day or two to read some threads, make a few comments and settle in here. You’ve got plenty of time to make your arguments once you’ve found your feet a bit.
Epistemic status: I do not speak for that moderator or the rest of LW. I rarely post here but have been a long time lurker. I believe that the following is correct, but I haven’t thought about it for a significant length of time.
I believe the issue is that you are asserting a specific issue as being the most important ever, with little proof other than that John Nash worked on it, which could be an appeal to authority. You provided little proof about why it is important. You gave no actual suggestions, merely comments.
You also posted three individual posts in a short time span, when all three could have been combined into a single one. It is considered polite to limit the number of posts started.
If I were you I would have presented the three separate posts in a single one, with more explanation about why you think the topic is significant, relying solely on the merits of the topic, not on an appeal to authority. I would also have given a suggestion, since you clearly seem to think that there should be something done about the issue, rather than relying on the community to give a suggestion.
Also, this might be just me, but I still have no clear picture on what the topic actually is after skimming the beginning of Nash’s lecture.
Thank you! You cannot argue it is an appeal to authority as a way of refuting it. I say its probably significant and correct because its Nash, and it is quite easy to traverse an 8 page paper as a community and decide whether I am making a substantial claim.
I am presenting a very difficult topic that not even Nash could get you to understand. It makes little sense for you to suggest that I am doing it wrong.
“Also, this might be just me, but I still have no clear picture on what the topic actually is after skimming the beginning of Nash’s lecture.”
Exactly. Please allow me to explain 20 years of lectures, in a very short time, so we can all understand the significance...especially before I am banned by this mod.
I am going to be the first person to use this “welcome thread” to suggest that a new member is not welcome at Less Wrong. In the case of Flinter, this conclusion should be immediately obvious from the low-quality posts and the abusive style of communication.
Around here, we have a saying that “a well-kept garden dies by pacifism”. A moderator needs to uproot this weed.
Welcome! So glad that you invited yourself to join us!
John Nash won a nobel prize for game theory. No one ignored him. He’s a great mathematician and economist, they made a movie about his life. The whole community mourned when he died in a car accident. No one is ignoring him.
Battles over definitions are interesting, and I would encourage you to become familiar with 37 ways that words can be wrong before challenging definitions.
presenting the most important topic in the world
This is a very bold claim, and would require very confident evidence to back it up. I am certainly not saying no, but the burden of proof is on you to explain why it matters so greatly to be world changing. Please feel free to put together a thesis which describes that.
Why is Less Wrong censoring out Nash’s work and implying that it is irrational?
Again a bold claim, no one is censoring any body of work and if we did it would still be on Wikipedia, or free to talk about it elsewhere (as with the general avoidance of politics)
You seem very excited about the idea, please explain more!
If future if you want people to be more interested in listening to you, you might want to avoid saying the following phrases:
″ a moderator already made a clearly irrational action”,
“action against me”,
“I mean to present a very difficult subject”,
“no one else can present”,
“I did so perfectly”,
″ the only way possible”,
“Doesn’t irrationality run counter to this site’s stated mission?”(rhetorical question),
“To be clear,”
“the most important topic in the world”
“with the assumption that it is probably significant and correct”
John Nash won a nobel prize for game theory. No one ignored him. He’s a great mathematician and economist, they made a movie about his life. The whole community mourned when he died in a car accident. No one is ignoring him.
He spoke for 20 years and wrote for that time on the subject Ideal Money that he had been developing his whole life. He toured country to country proposing his idea. Have you head of it, because you just stated you aren’t ignoring him and neither is the community. Do you understand his argument/proposal and what are you doing about the significance of it?
edit: (also btw what he was given prizes for was just components and sub-solutions contained within his bigger proposal Ideal Money)
Battles over definitions are interesting, and I would encourage you to become familiar with 37 ways that words can be wrong before challenging definitions.
There is nothing to battle over. I will be using all commonly accepted definitions. But I am particularly interested in whether or not we share the same definition for “ideal”, which is not a challenge or battle.
This is a very bold claim, and would require very confident evidence to back it up. I am certainly not saying no, but the burden of proof is on you to explain why it matters so greatly to be world changing. Please feel free to put together a thesis which describes that.
I have such a thesis’ but why would you ask for mine and not attend to Nash’s in order to judge the truth of it? That is irrational.
Again a bold claim, no one is censoring any body of work and if we did it would still be on Wikipedia, or free to talk about it elsewhere (as with the general avoidance of politics)
Yes my thread on it was removed and the mod explained they favor Hayek over Nash which is a clear indication of such bias. If they thought Nash’s proposal had merit and was rational then we would be having dialogue in the main forum like it belongs or AT LEAST in the discussion section.
John Nash… Do you understand his argument/proposal and what are you doing about the significance of it?
I haven’t had a chance yet, but it’s now on my list. I am digging into Keynesian Economics and Revealed preference theory at the moment.
I will be using all commonly accepted definitions
I hope so, but just to be clear it’s best to state your premises. Especially when presenting your information.
why would you ask for mine and not attend to Nash’s
Nash was a mathematician, I would love to see the easiest explanation to understand that you have.
main forum
Main is currently closed. As a matter of retirement, it’s mostly inactive. And is reserved for posts that both excel in ideas and clear presentation of those ideas to a wide audience. If I were to drop a link to the homepage of wikipedia and suggest all folks need to read it, that would be of little help to anyone, and would not make it to main.
I haven’t had a chance yet, but it’s now on my list. I am digging into Keynesian Economics and Revealed preference theory at the moment.
Nash explains how Keynesian is just another form of failed communism. He explains even post-Keynesians are just Keynesians (alluding to the fact that he is thinking FAR beyond anyone even just emerging crypto currencies. He explains how a revolution will end the Keynesian ero of central banking.
More importantly you said we aren’t being ignorant to Nash, and I showed that you are and still assert we all are. He did something significant with his whole life and stored it in 8 pages. I read more than 8 pages of links from you alone I think ;)
I hope so, but just to be clear it’s best to state your premises. Especially when presenting your information.
My premise is well stated. The introduction of an objective stable unit of value. But the mod moderated my presentation out of existence.
Nash was a mathematician, I would love to see the easiest explanation to understand that you have.
He was much more than that, and the mod removed the explanation! It involves two thread that still exist that I made today though, one on how to solve every problem on this forum, and another that discusses the shared meaning of ideal. Read those and that is the best explanation ever.
Main is currently closed. As a matter of retirement, it’s mostly inactive. And is reserved for posts that both excel in ideas and clear presentation of those ideas to a wide audience. If I were to drop a link to the homepage of wikipedia and suggest all folks need to read it, that would be of little help to anyone, and would not make it to main.
Nash’s works Ideal Money obviously belongs there. Don’t be irrational.
I am new and a moderator already made a clearly irrational action against me and I am dumbfounded. I mean to present a very difficult subject that no one else can present, and I did so perfectly and in the only way possible and the moderator moderated the attempt out of existence.
Doesn’t irrationality run counter to this site’s stated mission?
To be clear, I am presenting the most important topic in the world, with the assumption that it is probably significant and correct because it’s John Nash’s (most significant) work.
Why is Less Wrong censoring out Nash’s work and implying that it is irrational?
I’m the person that moved Flinter’s post to drafts, suggesting that he resubmit it as a linkpost to Nash’s talk and put his commentary in a comment, instead of the primary post.
It’s not Nash’s most significant work, and it is not the most important topic in the world. Those sorts of statements are a major contributor to why I thought the post was bad.
(In case people are wondering if I’m politically motivated, Hayek, a person who Nash describes as thinking parallel thoughts, is my favorite political thinker. This is policing post quality, not content.)
Is it possible to use moderation tools to hide the parent comment or move it. It doesn’t even belong here and others have been nice enough to offer good feedback regardless. This is a welcome thread, and it’s being derailed with bizarre behavior.
Sadly, the only direct tool I have is comment deletion, which rather than pruning or hiding the tree below it replaces it with a box that says “Comment Deleted” and its children in place. I could ask Grothor to make a new intro thread, and then delete or draft this thread.
Re this post: http://lesswrong.com/lw/ogp/a_proposal_for_a_simpler_solution_to_all_these/
You wrote something provocative but provided no arguments or explanations or examples or anything. That’s why it’s low-quality. It doesn’t matter how good your idea is if you don’t bother to do any legwork to show anyone else. I for one have no why your idea would and don’t care to do work to figure it out because the only reason I have to do work is that you said so.
Also, you might want to tackle something more concrete than “all these difficult observations and problems”. First, it’s definitely true that your ‘solution’ doesn’t solve all the problems. Maybe it helps with some. So which ones? Talk about those.
Also, your writing is exhaustingly vague (“I also value compression and time in this sense, and so I think I can propose a subject that might serve as an “ideal introduction” (I have an accurate meaning for this phrase I won’t introduce atm).”). This is really hard not to lose interest in while reading, and it’s only two random sample sentences.
Re http://lesswrong.com/lw/ogt/do_we_share_a_definition_for_the_word_ideal/, you’re going to have to do more work to make an interesting discussion. It’s not like “Oh, Flinter, good point, you and (all of us) might have different meanings for ‘ideal’!” is going to happen. It’s on you to show why this is interesting. What made you think the meanings are different? What different results come from that? What’s your definition? What do you think other peoples’ are, and why are they worse?
I agree with Vaniver that those two posts in their current form should have been at least heavily downvoted. Though that doesn’t happen much in practice here since traffic is low. I’m not sure what the removal policy is but I guess it probably applied.
Also, if you keep writing things like “No, you can’t give me feedback. It’s above you. I have come here to explain it to you. I made 3 threads, and they are equally important.” you’re going to be banned for being an ass, no question. You’re also wildly incorrect, but that’s another matter.
And, more directly, since downvoting is currently disabled.
Hi Flinter, welcome to Less Wrong.
Don’t be too upset about a mod moving your post. You just need to get a bit more familiar with the site rules before you dive in. I’m sure it’s nothing to do with their views on John Nash. If I made a post about how much I love Terry Pratchett, a mod would take it down for being irrelevant, but that wouldn’t mean they necessarily disapproved of Terry Pratchett, would it?
Maybe take a day or two to read some threads, make a few comments and settle in here. You’ve got plenty of time to make your arguments once you’ve found your feet a bit.
Epistemic status: I do not speak for that moderator or the rest of LW. I rarely post here but have been a long time lurker. I believe that the following is correct, but I haven’t thought about it for a significant length of time.
I believe the issue is that you are asserting a specific issue as being the most important ever, with little proof other than that John Nash worked on it, which could be an appeal to authority. You provided little proof about why it is important. You gave no actual suggestions, merely comments.
You also posted three individual posts in a short time span, when all three could have been combined into a single one. It is considered polite to limit the number of posts started.
If I were you I would have presented the three separate posts in a single one, with more explanation about why you think the topic is significant, relying solely on the merits of the topic, not on an appeal to authority. I would also have given a suggestion, since you clearly seem to think that there should be something done about the issue, rather than relying on the community to give a suggestion.
Also, this might be just me, but I still have no clear picture on what the topic actually is after skimming the beginning of Nash’s lecture.
Thank you! You cannot argue it is an appeal to authority as a way of refuting it. I say its probably significant and correct because its Nash, and it is quite easy to traverse an 8 page paper as a community and decide whether I am making a substantial claim.
I am presenting a very difficult topic that not even Nash could get you to understand. It makes little sense for you to suggest that I am doing it wrong.
“Also, this might be just me, but I still have no clear picture on what the topic actually is after skimming the beginning of Nash’s lecture.”
Exactly. Please allow me to explain 20 years of lectures, in a very short time, so we can all understand the significance...especially before I am banned by this mod.
What did you post? I study game theory and might be able to give you more feedback.
(Not OP)
It was http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~babu/nash/money.pdf, http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/ogp/a_proposal_for_a_simpler_solution_to_all_these/, and http://lesswrong.com/lw/ogt/do_we_share_a_definition_for_the_word_ideal/.
I am going to be the first person to use this “welcome thread” to suggest that a new member is not welcome at Less Wrong. In the case of Flinter, this conclusion should be immediately obvious from the low-quality posts and the abusive style of communication.
Around here, we have a saying that “a well-kept garden dies by pacifism”. A moderator needs to uproot this weed.
Welcome! So glad that you invited yourself to join us!
John Nash won a nobel prize for game theory. No one ignored him. He’s a great mathematician and economist, they made a movie about his life. The whole community mourned when he died in a car accident. No one is ignoring him.
Battles over definitions are interesting, and I would encourage you to become familiar with 37 ways that words can be wrong before challenging definitions.
This is a very bold claim, and would require very confident evidence to back it up. I am certainly not saying no, but the burden of proof is on you to explain why it matters so greatly to be world changing. Please feel free to put together a thesis which describes that.
Again a bold claim, no one is censoring any body of work and if we did it would still be on Wikipedia, or free to talk about it elsewhere (as with the general avoidance of politics)
You seem very excited about the idea, please explain more!
If future if you want people to be more interested in listening to you, you might want to avoid saying the following phrases:
″ a moderator already made a clearly irrational action”,
“action against me”,
“I mean to present a very difficult subject”,
“no one else can present”,
“I did so perfectly”,
″ the only way possible”,
“Doesn’t irrationality run counter to this site’s stated mission?”(rhetorical question),
“To be clear,”
“the most important topic in the world”
“with the assumption that it is probably significant and correct”
“Why is Less Wrong censoring …”
He spoke for 20 years and wrote for that time on the subject Ideal Money that he had been developing his whole life. He toured country to country proposing his idea. Have you head of it, because you just stated you aren’t ignoring him and neither is the community. Do you understand his argument/proposal and what are you doing about the significance of it?
edit: (also btw what he was given prizes for was just components and sub-solutions contained within his bigger proposal Ideal Money)
There is nothing to battle over. I will be using all commonly accepted definitions. But I am particularly interested in whether or not we share the same definition for “ideal”, which is not a challenge or battle.
I have such a thesis’ but why would you ask for mine and not attend to Nash’s in order to judge the truth of it? That is irrational.
Yes my thread on it was removed and the mod explained they favor Hayek over Nash which is a clear indication of such bias. If they thought Nash’s proposal had merit and was rational then we would be having dialogue in the main forum like it belongs or AT LEAST in the discussion section.
Thanks, cheers!
I haven’t had a chance yet, but it’s now on my list. I am digging into Keynesian Economics and Revealed preference theory at the moment.
I hope so, but just to be clear it’s best to state your premises. Especially when presenting your information.
Nash was a mathematician, I would love to see the easiest explanation to understand that you have.
Main is currently closed. As a matter of retirement, it’s mostly inactive. And is reserved for posts that both excel in ideas and clear presentation of those ideas to a wide audience. If I were to drop a link to the homepage of wikipedia and suggest all folks need to read it, that would be of little help to anyone, and would not make it to main.
Nash explains how Keynesian is just another form of failed communism. He explains even post-Keynesians are just Keynesians (alluding to the fact that he is thinking FAR beyond anyone even just emerging crypto currencies. He explains how a revolution will end the Keynesian ero of central banking.
More importantly you said we aren’t being ignorant to Nash, and I showed that you are and still assert we all are. He did something significant with his whole life and stored it in 8 pages. I read more than 8 pages of links from you alone I think ;)
My premise is well stated. The introduction of an objective stable unit of value. But the mod moderated my presentation out of existence.
He was much more than that, and the mod removed the explanation! It involves two thread that still exist that I made today though, one on how to solve every problem on this forum, and another that discusses the shared meaning of ideal. Read those and that is the best explanation ever.
Nash’s works Ideal Money obviously belongs there. Don’t be irrational.