This quote argues for a position, which is why I think it currently sits ugly at 0 karma after having sat ugly at 1 for a while, but I think, inseparable from the position being argued for, it espouses an important general principle which one should not simply ignore because it can apply to one’s preconception; indeed (applying its lesson) that is precisely when we need the principle most.
So while I would have just taken the general principle out from Sister Y’s post if it were possible for me to do so (and taken the mediocre three to four karma I would have gotten for it), I’m glad that it was intertwined now, as it shows that yes, you’re supposed to apply the principle to even this (substitute anything for “this”, of course).
I do sincerely wonder what the world would look like if people could even-handedly apply lessons from quotes. There are many lessons here.
Edit: Actually, looking closely at what the words actually say, I realize it doesn’t, by itself, argue for the position that the former value is better than the latter value, but its context is an argument for said thing.
Edit2: If you look at the sort of quote in the original Rationality Quotes posts that were entirely Eliezer’s collection, they were mostly of the sort that were likely to make you think about something rather than something that is easy to agree with. A desire to return to that model could be what’s motivating the comment you’re reading.
In brief, you presented a quote (1) with a controversial position, (2) little LessWrong consensus, (3) no obvious relationship to generalized improvement at achieving goals, and (4) no relationship to the ideal scientific method. You are surprised (or disappointed) that it got negligible karma attention.
Definitely not surprised. (Edit: okay, now I’m a little surprised. The quote has now been voted up to +4. My little discussion was convincing? I don’t know!) Maybe moderately disappointed. I think there’s a lot to be said for the meta level of “continue to search, and not just put on a show of searching, for where you’re wrong, even if you’ve already done this many times.” I’m a little more disappointed that the highest-voted quotes tend to be applause lights. (Though not always) (also, applause lights are not inherently bad things, but I wish they didn’t get the most karma).
(1) Visibility—people who missed the quote the first time saw our exchange on the side bar.
(2) I am also confused by the purpose of the rationality quotes page. It’s not surprising to me that lack of consensus limits upvote potential (i.e. local applause lights get voted up). That said, applause lights are grounded in particular communities. “I like human rights” is an applause light in the United States, but is a provocative position in North Korea. Some of the upvoting is based on the wish that the quote was more widely accepted in general society (i.e. we wish society was more like us)
(3) Notwithstanding what I just said, Rationality Quotes seems to function as a ideological purity tester. If it gets upvoted here, that shows it is part of the local consensus. In other words, I could post quotes that I thought were both post-modern and rationalist, and I expect they would be downvoted as outside the mainstream. To the extent that you think LessWrong has dysfunctional groupthink, I’m not sure the fight can be won in Rationality Quotes as opposed to Open Thread or Discussion. (I aspire to aspire to post into Main, so I seldom think about the social norms of that type of posting).
(4) In a substantive response to your quote, LessWrong is surprisingly child-free-living in its attitude. Even controlling for age, socioeconomic status, and gender, we are not even vaguely representative of how frequently people desire to have children.
This quote argues for a position, which is why I think it currently sits ugly at 0 karma after having sat ugly at 1 for a while, but I think, inseparable from the position being argued for, it espouses an important general principle which one should not simply ignore because it can apply to one’s preconception; indeed (applying its lesson) that is precisely when we need the principle most.
So while I would have just taken the general principle out from Sister Y’s post if it were possible for me to do so (and taken the mediocre three to four karma I would have gotten for it), I’m glad that it was intertwined now, as it shows that yes, you’re supposed to apply the principle to even this (substitute anything for “this”, of course).
I do sincerely wonder what the world would look like if people could even-handedly apply lessons from quotes. There are many lessons here.
Edit: Actually, looking closely at what the words actually say, I realize it doesn’t, by itself, argue for the position that the former value is better than the latter value, but its context is an argument for said thing.
Edit2: If you look at the sort of quote in the original Rationality Quotes posts that were entirely Eliezer’s collection, they were mostly of the sort that were likely to make you think about something rather than something that is easy to agree with. A desire to return to that model could be what’s motivating the comment you’re reading.
In brief, you presented a quote (1) with a controversial position, (2) little LessWrong consensus, (3) no obvious relationship to generalized improvement at achieving goals, and (4) no relationship to the ideal scientific method. You are surprised (or disappointed) that it got negligible karma attention.
I notice I am confused.
Definitely not surprised. (Edit: okay, now I’m a little surprised. The quote has now been voted up to +4. My little discussion was convincing? I don’t know!) Maybe moderately disappointed. I think there’s a lot to be said for the meta level of “continue to search, and not just put on a show of searching, for where you’re wrong, even if you’ve already done this many times.” I’m a little more disappointed that the highest-voted quotes tend to be applause lights. (Though not always) (also, applause lights are not inherently bad things, but I wish they didn’t get the most karma).
(1) Visibility—people who missed the quote the first time saw our exchange on the side bar.
(2) I am also confused by the purpose of the rationality quotes page. It’s not surprising to me that lack of consensus limits upvote potential (i.e. local applause lights get voted up). That said, applause lights are grounded in particular communities. “I like human rights” is an applause light in the United States, but is a provocative position in North Korea. Some of the upvoting is based on the wish that the quote was more widely accepted in general society (i.e. we wish society was more like us)
(3) Notwithstanding what I just said, Rationality Quotes seems to function as a ideological purity tester. If it gets upvoted here, that shows it is part of the local consensus. In other words, I could post quotes that I thought were both post-modern and rationalist, and I expect they would be downvoted as outside the mainstream. To the extent that you think LessWrong has dysfunctional groupthink, I’m not sure the fight can be won in Rationality Quotes as opposed to Open Thread or Discussion. (I aspire to aspire to post into Main, so I seldom think about the social norms of that type of posting).
(4) In a substantive response to your quote, LessWrong is surprisingly child-free-living in its attitude. Even controlling for age, socioeconomic status, and gender, we are not even vaguely representative of how frequently people desire to have children.
I’m curious. Did you say “aspire to aspire to post into Main” deliberately?