As someone recently said on Facebook: I am trying really hard to read any of the comments as similarly tongue in cheek, but… it’s not working.
What I was actually expecting was a playful battle-of-the-Trekies where we argue largely in jest over whether, how, and why an ideal Bayesian community should emulate or differ from Steel Vulcans. I am updating pretty strongly toward “Lesswrong doesn’t do humor.” If I shouldn’t be, feel free to explain what I’m missing. I’m sort of new here.
Well, your post [at least at first glance] misses the point of what ‘straw vulcan rationality’ represents (a model of faulty rationality and not a statement about the actual fictional race that you care about) and it is a nitpick at best (not to mention that, in fact, most of the time when a viewer sees a vulcan in the shows said vulcan’s ‘rationality’ is faulty).
I mean, I get how nitpicks can be funny but posting that “Wow, apparently Lesswrong really hates humor.” and similar statements when your ’humorous” post doesn’t get well accepted seems excessive. Not to mention that even if this post looked like a joke (which it doesn’t to me) and not like trying to prove a point that misses the real point, its place wouldn’t be exactly in the Discussion section of the site by my standards if there is no additional content in the post on top of the humor.
(And yes, I know that you are likely to label me as one of those humourless lesswrongers that missed your joke.)
There’s plenty of humor (tumor? It’s not a tumor!) to be had around here, so your conclusion seems off-base. This comment just now had me laugh out loudly, and this rather infantile quip of mine still got plenty of upvotes.
Is it because of wedrifid’s comment? Took me years to understand he’s all about refined subtle humor, yes quite.
As someone recently said on Facebook: I am trying really hard to read any of the comments as similarly tongue in cheek, but… it’s not working.
What I was actually expecting was a playful battle-of-the-Trekies where we argue largely in jest over whether, how, and why an ideal Bayesian community should emulate or differ from Steel Vulcans. I am updating pretty strongly toward “Lesswrong doesn’t do humor.” If I shouldn’t be, feel free to explain what I’m missing. I’m sort of new here.
I’d like to see more humor on LessWrong, but I don’t consider this post particularly funny.
Well, your post [at least at first glance] misses the point of what ‘straw vulcan rationality’ represents (a model of faulty rationality and not a statement about the actual fictional race that you care about) and it is a nitpick at best (not to mention that, in fact, most of the time when a viewer sees a vulcan in the shows said vulcan’s ‘rationality’ is faulty).
I mean, I get how nitpicks can be funny but posting that “Wow, apparently Lesswrong really hates humor.” and similar statements when your ’humorous” post doesn’t get well accepted seems excessive. Not to mention that even if this post looked like a joke (which it doesn’t to me) and not like trying to prove a point that misses the real point, its place wouldn’t be exactly in the Discussion section of the site by my standards if there is no additional content in the post on top of the humor.
(And yes, I know that you are likely to label me as one of those humourless lesswrongers that missed your joke.)
There’s plenty of humor (tumor? It’s not a tumor!) to be had around here, so your conclusion seems off-base. This comment just now had me laugh out loudly, and this rather infantile quip of mine still got plenty of upvotes.
Is it because of wedrifid’s comment? Took me years to understand he’s all about refined subtle humor, yes quite.