That’s petty. The purpose of such statements is to establish group norms, not assert high status. You’re shocked that someone would create a community website and then propose to determine what sort of community would arise from it?
I am not sure you understood the intent of my comment. “The royal we” is a phrase with a technical meaning. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralis_Majestatis It seems like an accurate statement of the facts to me.
Whatever it refers to, my immediate reaction was that the “we” doesn’t seem to include me—which seems unfortunate, since—AFAICS—my usage is the more standard one. Anyway: your blog—lay down whatever terminology you like.
I thought it was OUR blog—as in our community and not Eliezer’s community.
And yes the more I think about it the more I think a FAQ which defines rationality as “we” use it needs this comment section.
I do not find Eliezer’s definition in itself sufficient. Defining rationality will always be a work in progress and new suggestions should be added. As I see it the present defintion limits itself to a mechanical rationality (as is Eliezer’s want) and excludes “searching”—the act of imagination.
That’s petty. The purpose of such statements is to establish group norms, not assert high status. You’re shocked that someone would create a community website and then propose to determine what sort of community would arise from it?
I am not sure you understood the intent of my comment. “The royal we” is a phrase with a technical meaning. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralis_Majestatis It seems like an accurate statement of the facts to me.
http://www.odlt.org/ballast/pluralis_auctoris.html
Whatever it refers to, my immediate reaction was that the “we” doesn’t seem to include me—which seems unfortunate, since—AFAICS—my usage is the more standard one. Anyway: your blog—lay down whatever terminology you like.
Is this Eliezers Blog?!
I thought it was OUR blog—as in our community and not Eliezer’s community.
And yes the more I think about it the more I think a FAQ which defines rationality as “we” use it needs this comment section.
I do not find Eliezer’s definition in itself sufficient. Defining rationality will always be a work in progress and new suggestions should be added. As I see it the present defintion limits itself to a mechanical rationality (as is Eliezer’s want) and excludes “searching”—the act of imagination.