I have privately discussed the arguments and found them convincing enough to move my position over the past year much more in his direction.
Thank you for this data point, but it doesn’t move me as much as you may have expected. I think many flawed arguments are flawed in subtle enough ways that it takes “many eyes” to detect the flaws (or can even survive such scrutiny for many years, see some of the flawed security proofs in cryptography for important commonly used algorithms and protocols as evidence). I personally would not update very much even if I saw the arguments for myself and found them convincing, unless I knew that many others with a diversity of expertise and cognitive styles have reviewed and had a chance to discuss the arguments and I’ve looked over those discussions as well.
Typically the first thing I do after finding a new idea is to look for other people’s discussions of it. I’m concerned that many are like me in this regard, but when they come to Vladimir_M’s “vague and general” arguments, they see them highly upvoted without much criticism, and wrongly conclude that many people have reviewed these “vague and general” arguments and found nothing wrong with them when it’s more of a problem with potential critics lacking sufficient incentive to attack them. Even worse, if Vladimir_M’s conclusions become commonly accepted (or appear to be commonly accepted) on LW due to such dynamics, it sets up a potentially bad precedent. Others may be tempted (not necessarily consciously) to overestimate how inflammatory some of their arguments are in order to gain an edge in getting their ideas accepted.
(As I mentioned, Vladimir_M may well have already thought through these issues more thoroughly than I have, but I wanted to bring up some possible downsides that he may have overlooked.)
Thank you for this data point, but it doesn’t move me as much as you may have expected.
Oh I didn’t expect it to, its not like I’m a particularly trustworthy authority or anything and your many eyes argument is a good one, I just wanted to share an anecdote.
I was actually hoping readers would take more notice of the other anecdote, the one about the attempt to create an alternative for rationalists to discuss and update on such topics (a mailing list) that was tried and failed. To describe the failure in more detail I think inactivity despite some interesting discussion in the first month or so captures it best.
I was confused by your description of the mailing list so I put it aside and then forgot to ask you to clarify it. Can you tell us a bit more? How many people were on the list? Was it open or by invitation only? Was it an existing mailing list or created just for this purpose? How did you recruit members? Why do you think it failed to be active after the first month? Why did you say “as you probably know”?
I have been on several highly active mailing lists, both open and closed, so my guess is that you failed to recruit enough members. (Another possibility is that people didn’t find the topic interesting but that seems less likely.) Why not try to recruit more members?
Before I saw this reply I already talked about it more here since I saw it needed to be clarified. Now to answer all your questions.
Can you tell us a bit more?
I’ll do better I will share the introductory description sent via PM. To give context, a little before this there was an extensive discussion on the pros and cons of various approaches to discovering truth and gaining sanity on mind-killing issues. I think it was in one of the many sub-threads to lukeprogs rational romance article.
I was mostly convinced by arguments against an official mindkiller discussion mailing list, yet I was wondering, would you consider participating in a more informal discussion with a few more people from LessWrong?
A few people that are currently on the list or have been received invitations: [20 or so names]
I’ve sent similar messages to all of them a few weeks back when starting the list. I am still open to suggestions on who else might be both interested and unlikely to go tribal in their thinking (many people on the previous list where added from suggestions). I’m also open to confidential criticism of the choice for the initial list of people (including myself ).I want to emphasise the usefulness of criticism, since most people so far seem to respond just by adding names not suggesting which should be taken away. As a result the list is a bit bloated.
If you are interested in following or participating please include an email address in your response. Also if you choose to join the group please read the temporary guidelines.
My adress is: [my email address]
Cheers, Konkvistador
Also to again emphasise a key point I fear might be misunderstood I’ll quote from the temporary guidelines:
Please don’t ever present this or the later the mailing list as anything official or semi-official. It is not. It is just some people from LW talking about stuff.
Now to answer your specific questions.
How many people were on the list?
About 20 to 30.
Was it open or by invitation only?
Invitation only. With people having to agree to new members being added. No proposals where shot down, however people didn’t suggest many names.
Was it an existing mailing list or created just for this purpose?
Newly created.
How did you recruit members?
PMs to people on LessWrong with contact info.
Why do you think it failed to be active after the first month
I’m not sure, my best guess was not enough people. Perhaps people where also reluctant to open new topics since privacy protection was pretty much paper thin. My cynical side said it was because the list had too many contrarians who weren’t motivated to write because they lacked a non-contrarian audience, and going metacontrarian one more step would require too muhc legwork. :)
Why did you say “as you probably know”?
I thought you where a member of the list. I’ve now checked, you where invited but you never replied.
I have been on several highly active mailing lists, both open and closed, so my guess is that you failed to recruit enough members.
Most likely explanation.
Why not try to recruit more members?
It has been inactive for some time. Still some discussion did take place, so potentially harmful material may be in the archives, I wouldn’t be ok sending new invitations unless the old members agreed.
I must have been busy with something at the time and then later forgot about the invitation. Can you PM me the details of how to join so I can take a look at the archives?
Lack of a big audience would definitely also contribute to inactivity, especially if there’s not even a feeling that one’s contributions might eventually be synthesized into something that will be seen or used by many others. Maybe you can try a different format? Make the forum public but encourage people to use fresh pseudonyms for privacy, and be ready to ban people who are disruptive?
I must have been busy with something at the time and then later forgot about the invitation. Can you PM me the details of how to join so I can take a look at the archives?
Yes you where on the original list people agreed to so there is I think no problem with you taking a look at the archives. I’ll send you a PM.
Maybe you can try a different format? Make the forum public but encourage people to use fresh pseudonyms for privacy, and be ready to ban people who are disruptive?
Perhaps this would be a better approach. I don’t think I have the time for this right now and not for at least a month or two, so if anyone else is feeling motivated…
It’s possible that the mailing list would be in better shape if you posted more. I used to be in amateur press associations—what people did before they had the internet—and I’m pretty sure that the successful ones had substantial contributions by the people running them.
That sounds like good advice. But I honestly wasn’t sure people where interested in my contributions at all, there where lots of excellent rationalist there, that’s a pretty intimidating audience!
an alternative for rationalists to discuss and update on such topics
I think you’re proposing an alternative because you’re a C.I.A. agent trying to infiltrate LW and divide the community for your government’s nefarious purposes—which will remain unspoken lest they become memetic and drive the world towards the edge of insanity.
/devil’s advocate
And, seriously, when was the last time anyone was punished on LW for posting their contrarian thought? The gestalt I’m getting is that LWers so desperately want to be accepting of contrarians that they’ll take the most insane and unsupported propositions more seriously than they deserve (e.g. Will Newsome).
Contrarian =/= Mindkilling =/= Hurts the community if discussed =/= Something LW can’t productively discuss
Though there is obviously some overlap. Consider the exercises in frustration and mutual incomprehension that result when we talk about PUA/gender/sexuality. It is I would argue not that mindkilling a subject, there is little wild contrarianism, yet it is a debate I’d rather not see relaunched because of the fail that has consistently accompanied it on LW/OB for years.
Also Will Newsome is a bit of a straw man no? I would argue he is seen by most posters as firmly in the people in Pittsburgh are ten feet tall territory.
Contrarian =/= Mindkilling =/= Hurts the community if discussed =/= Something LW can’t productively discuss
Though there is obviously some overlap
What is contrarian (for this community and re anything outside of AI) is what is typically considered mindkilling and what is mindkilling is what is typically thought of as hurting the community. When I use ‘contrarian’ in this context, I’m just putting a word to what you’re referring to in your previous comment.
Consider the exercises in frustration and mutual incomprehension that result when we talk about PUA/gender/sexuality.
What I generally see is people assuming conclusions based on flimsy science (e.g., a lot of the science brought in to support preexisting conclusions within the PUA community), and then assuming the push-back is entirely or mostly because of the offense caused (no doubt that offense is motivating for entering discussion, though).
Also Will Newsome is a bit of a straw man no?
Yes and no. He is partly in the 2+2=5 territory in the context of the community as a whole, but then there are people who take him seriously (just saying he supports X gets him karma). In this thread, Vladimir_M is another example.
And, seriously, when was the last time anyone was punished on LW for posting their contrarian thought
Plainly expressed contrarian posts are downvoted, or silently and furtively deleted. The likelihood of silent and furtive deletion discourages people from posting.
In case you weren’t aware, your “deleted” posts are available for anyone who’d care to browse them on your user page. You can check — go back a page or two and click on the permalinks, you’ll see those posts are “deleted” from the perspective of the threads they were part of. Maybe this is a bug in the LW code, but personally I think it’s kinda useful, because folks can verify the nature of your contributions and thereby the veracity of your claims here.
Folks can draw their own conclusions of your work — but I was particularly impressed by your claims that stepfathers typically rape boys, while “girls without a natural father are apt to become whores”; and that “allowing blacks, mestizos, women, white males who have not been raised by their biological fathers, and homosexuals into the power structure has produced a general collapse of trust and trustworthiness in the ruling elite [...] because members of these groups are commonly less trustworthy”; as well as your assertion that the design intent of cervical-cancer prevention programs is to cover up for the evils of male homosexuality.
Despite the fact that your claims are extraordinary and therefore in need of evidence to raise them to any probability worth consideration, you do not cite evidence for your claims. Instead you assert that your beliefs are themselves “evidence” and “fact” — that your map is the territory — and that people who cite evidence that disagrees with your claims are “pious” “PC” censors.
It seems that you are operating what the Wikipedia folks call a “single-purpose account”. You do not participate in discussions on AI, x-rationality, cognitive science, game theory, timeless ethics, self-improvement, or any of the other subjects commonly discussed here; except insofar as you can turn these topics to your own unusual breed of far-right politics. This politics appears to be almost exclusively concerned with the moral and cultural significance of other people’s sexual conduct and racial heritage — and with demeaning anyone who disagrees with you.
Since Less Wrong is not primarily about politics of any stripe, and since people are rather fond of evidence around here, it is unsurprising that you have received a chilly reception. I suggest that your views would be better aired in a different forum.
Despite the fact that your claims are extraordinary and therefore in need of evidence to raise them to any probability worth consideration, you do not cite evidence for your claims.
Liar.
For example I never asserted that “that the design intent of cervical-cancer prevention programs is to cover up for the evils of male homosexuality.”
Rather, I produced evidence that might incline some people to draw the conclusion that was a factor in the design, without ever suggesting that conclusion myself.
So far from making an assertion without evidence, I have been producing evidence without assertions and letting that evidence speak for itself.
Thank you for this data point, but it doesn’t move me as much as you may have expected. I think many flawed arguments are flawed in subtle enough ways that it takes “many eyes” to detect the flaws (or can even survive such scrutiny for many years, see some of the flawed security proofs in cryptography for important commonly used algorithms and protocols as evidence). I personally would not update very much even if I saw the arguments for myself and found them convincing, unless I knew that many others with a diversity of expertise and cognitive styles have reviewed and had a chance to discuss the arguments and I’ve looked over those discussions as well.
Typically the first thing I do after finding a new idea is to look for other people’s discussions of it. I’m concerned that many are like me in this regard, but when they come to Vladimir_M’s “vague and general” arguments, they see them highly upvoted without much criticism, and wrongly conclude that many people have reviewed these “vague and general” arguments and found nothing wrong with them when it’s more of a problem with potential critics lacking sufficient incentive to attack them. Even worse, if Vladimir_M’s conclusions become commonly accepted (or appear to be commonly accepted) on LW due to such dynamics, it sets up a potentially bad precedent. Others may be tempted (not necessarily consciously) to overestimate how inflammatory some of their arguments are in order to gain an edge in getting their ideas accepted.
(As I mentioned, Vladimir_M may well have already thought through these issues more thoroughly than I have, but I wanted to bring up some possible downsides that he may have overlooked.)
Oh I didn’t expect it to, its not like I’m a particularly trustworthy authority or anything and your many eyes argument is a good one, I just wanted to share an anecdote.
I was actually hoping readers would take more notice of the other anecdote, the one about the attempt to create an alternative for rationalists to discuss and update on such topics (a mailing list) that was tried and failed. To describe the failure in more detail I think inactivity despite some interesting discussion in the first month or so captures it best.
I was confused by your description of the mailing list so I put it aside and then forgot to ask you to clarify it. Can you tell us a bit more? How many people were on the list? Was it open or by invitation only? Was it an existing mailing list or created just for this purpose? How did you recruit members? Why do you think it failed to be active after the first month? Why did you say “as you probably know”?
I have been on several highly active mailing lists, both open and closed, so my guess is that you failed to recruit enough members. (Another possibility is that people didn’t find the topic interesting but that seems less likely.) Why not try to recruit more members?
Before I saw this reply I already talked about it more here since I saw it needed to be clarified. Now to answer all your questions.
I’ll do better I will share the introductory description sent via PM. To give context, a little before this there was an extensive discussion on the pros and cons of various approaches to discovering truth and gaining sanity on mind-killing issues. I think it was in one of the many sub-threads to lukeprogs rational romance article.
Also to again emphasise a key point I fear might be misunderstood I’ll quote from the temporary guidelines:
Now to answer your specific questions.
About 20 to 30.
Invitation only. With people having to agree to new members being added. No proposals where shot down, however people didn’t suggest many names.
Newly created.
PMs to people on LessWrong with contact info.
I’m not sure, my best guess was not enough people. Perhaps people where also reluctant to open new topics since privacy protection was pretty much paper thin. My cynical side said it was because the list had too many contrarians who weren’t motivated to write because they lacked a non-contrarian audience, and going metacontrarian one more step would require too muhc legwork. :)
I thought you where a member of the list. I’ve now checked, you where invited but you never replied.
Most likely explanation.
It has been inactive for some time. Still some discussion did take place, so potentially harmful material may be in the archives, I wouldn’t be ok sending new invitations unless the old members agreed.
I must have been busy with something at the time and then later forgot about the invitation. Can you PM me the details of how to join so I can take a look at the archives?
Lack of a big audience would definitely also contribute to inactivity, especially if there’s not even a feeling that one’s contributions might eventually be synthesized into something that will be seen or used by many others. Maybe you can try a different format? Make the forum public but encourage people to use fresh pseudonyms for privacy, and be ready to ban people who are disruptive?
Yes you where on the original list people agreed to so there is I think no problem with you taking a look at the archives. I’ll send you a PM.
Perhaps this would be a better approach. I don’t think I have the time for this right now and not for at least a month or two, so if anyone else is feeling motivated…
It’s possible that the mailing list would be in better shape if you posted more. I used to be in amateur press associations—what people did before they had the internet—and I’m pretty sure that the successful ones had substantial contributions by the people running them.
That sounds like good advice. But I honestly wasn’t sure people where interested in my contributions at all, there where lots of excellent rationalist there, that’s a pretty intimidating audience!
That’s why someone has to go first. I nominate you.
I think you’re proposing an alternative because you’re a C.I.A. agent trying to infiltrate LW and divide the community for your government’s nefarious purposes—which will remain unspoken lest they become memetic and drive the world towards the edge of insanity.
/devil’s advocate
And, seriously, when was the last time anyone was punished on LW for posting their contrarian thought? The gestalt I’m getting is that LWers so desperately want to be accepting of contrarians that they’ll take the most insane and unsupported propositions more seriously than they deserve (e.g. Will Newsome).
Contrarian =/= Mindkilling =/= Hurts the community if discussed =/= Something LW can’t productively discuss
Though there is obviously some overlap. Consider the exercises in frustration and mutual incomprehension that result when we talk about PUA/gender/sexuality. It is I would argue not that mindkilling a subject, there is little wild contrarianism, yet it is a debate I’d rather not see relaunched because of the fail that has consistently accompanied it on LW/OB for years.
Also Will Newsome is a bit of a straw man no? I would argue he is seen by most posters as firmly in the people in Pittsburgh are ten feet tall territory.
What is contrarian (for this community and re anything outside of AI) is what is typically considered mindkilling and what is mindkilling is what is typically thought of as hurting the community. When I use ‘contrarian’ in this context, I’m just putting a word to what you’re referring to in your previous comment.
What I generally see is people assuming conclusions based on flimsy science (e.g., a lot of the science brought in to support preexisting conclusions within the PUA community), and then assuming the push-back is entirely or mostly because of the offense caused (no doubt that offense is motivating for entering discussion, though).
Yes and no. He is partly in the 2+2=5 territory in the context of the community as a whole, but then there are people who take him seriously (just saying he supports X gets him karma). In this thread, Vladimir_M is another example.
eta: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/9kf/ive_had_it_with_those_dark_rumours_about_our/
Plainly expressed contrarian posts are downvoted, or silently and furtively deleted. The likelihood of silent and furtive deletion discourages people from posting.
In case you weren’t aware, your “deleted” posts are available for anyone who’d care to browse them on your user page. You can check — go back a page or two and click on the permalinks, you’ll see those posts are “deleted” from the perspective of the threads they were part of. Maybe this is a bug in the LW code, but personally I think it’s kinda useful, because folks can verify the nature of your contributions and thereby the veracity of your claims here.
Folks can draw their own conclusions of your work — but I was particularly impressed by your claims that stepfathers typically rape boys, while “girls without a natural father are apt to become whores”; and that “allowing blacks, mestizos, women, white males who have not been raised by their biological fathers, and homosexuals into the power structure has produced a general collapse of trust and trustworthiness in the ruling elite [...] because members of these groups are commonly less trustworthy”; as well as your assertion that the design intent of cervical-cancer prevention programs is to cover up for the evils of male homosexuality.
Despite the fact that your claims are extraordinary and therefore in need of evidence to raise them to any probability worth consideration, you do not cite evidence for your claims. Instead you assert that your beliefs are themselves “evidence” and “fact” — that your map is the territory — and that people who cite evidence that disagrees with your claims are “pious” “PC” censors.
It seems that you are operating what the Wikipedia folks call a “single-purpose account”. You do not participate in discussions on AI, x-rationality, cognitive science, game theory, timeless ethics, self-improvement, or any of the other subjects commonly discussed here; except insofar as you can turn these topics to your own unusual breed of far-right politics. This politics appears to be almost exclusively concerned with the moral and cultural significance of other people’s sexual conduct and racial heritage — and with demeaning anyone who disagrees with you.
Since Less Wrong is not primarily about politics of any stripe, and since people are rather fond of evidence around here, it is unsurprising that you have received a chilly reception. I suggest that your views would be better aired in a different forum.
Liar.
For example I never asserted that “that the design intent of cervical-cancer prevention programs is to cover up for the evils of male homosexuality.”
Rather, I produced evidence that might incline some people to draw the conclusion that was a factor in the design, without ever suggesting that conclusion myself.
So far from making an assertion without evidence, I have been producing evidence without assertions and letting that evidence speak for itself.