The recently downvoted posts I see begin with “I’m not going to read all of your post, but”, “I’ll be the judge of that.” and “Fuck you”. I don’t think it’s very surprising those have been downvoted. Consider whether other people are likely to feel you’ve added something useful to the discussion when you post and you’ll probably avoid the downvotes. If you just feel the need to vent occasionally then accept the karma hit as the price for your satisfaction.
I don’t think it’s very surprising those have been downvoted.
Can you be more specific, except regarding the “Fuck you” comment?
My view:
“I’m not going to read all of your post, but”
I had already read a considerable part of the post, commented once and read other comments. Based on what I had already read and understood I just decided I didn’t want to read more of the post(I think this is my right) but since I had already thought about what I read and the other replies considerably I nevertheless decided to comment based on the information I had. I could have made that very same comment without mentioning the fact that I didn’t (intend) to read the whole thing but I decided to be honest about the state of my knowledge so I added that in. So from my perspective I’m being penalized for honest self disclosure.
“I’ll be the judge of that.”
Was given as an answer to someone suggesting how I should use my time. I still don’t see where I’m wrong with that.
In the first case, my downvote had nothing to do with whether you’d read the entire article or not. It had to do with your apparent lack of understanding of the purpose of the site. You came very close to suggesting that rationality and irrationality are subjective, and essentially indicated that you think rationality shouldn’t be valued as highly as is the norm here. The comments about other posters’ rationality seemed inappropriate, too: We’re here to learn to be more rational, and all of us have areas of irrationality to work on.
The downvote in the second case was based primarily on tone: Morendil offered what appears to me to be a suggestion on how to avoid being downvoted in the future (I’ll grant that it’s not the best advice that could have been given, but it seems to me to have been given in good faith if nothing else), and you responded in a way that looks both defensive and status-oriented to me, without actually adding any useful information. Such reactions are rarely useful, especially here. If you’d stated your disagreement in a way that opened the issue up for discussion, rather than apparently trying to end the conversation by asserting dominance, I wouldn’t’ve downvoted you. In fact, I may even have upvoted in that case; I like to see good discussions of our group norms—at least, the norms that don’t define the group.
The comments about other posters’ rationality seemed inappropriate, too: We’re here to learn to be more rational, and all of us have areas of irrationality to work on.
If I understood you correctly the part after the colon is referencing my viewpoint right? I don’t get what is wrong with it unless you want to assert that there are already lots of people here with 100% rationality who don’t need to work on it anymore.
Incorrect; I brought it up because it’s part of how-things-are-here that you seemed not to realize that we realize. We acknowledge that we’re not perfectly rational, or even rational to the limits of what human minds can accomplish, but we still do have expectations and standards.
I don’t disbelieve you, but that’s not what I was trying to get at. This site is intended for people who are trying to improve their rationality and have already passed a certain threshold of rationality. The top post poses the question of where that threshold should be, not whether we should have one at all. At least three of the points in your original comment are in conflict with that intention:
the fact that a lot of people here think that being religious is irrational doesn’t mean that it actually is irrational.
what one humans deems rational another might deem irrational
Religion is now considered a great example of irrationality but only because of the current political and social context(being atheist is “in”). There are beliefs as irrational as but that are simply not pointed out as vehemently.
Until we have AGI it will always be humans who will judge what is rational and what isn’t. I don’t see my points as being contradictory to the site’s intention unless you want to assert that there is an absolute judge of rationality somewhere.
Passed a certain threshold of rationality? What would that threshold be? Do you think that Aumann has passed this threshold? Who will judge who passed it and who didn’t? Of course we could use religion as a filter but this only tells us that religion has become a salient example of supposed irrationality.
As for the non-subjective definition of rationality I think this is highly questionable even from a bayesian perspective. I’ll say it again: even bayesian superintelligences will disagree if they have different priors. So the question becomes: is there a correct prior? AFAIK this question is still open.
And as humans we certainly all have different priors which implies my point:
what one humans deems rational another might deem irrational
I have other things to do with my evening, so I will probably not be responding to further posts on this thread until tomorrow, and I may not wind up getting back to this thread at all. If someone else would like to pick up the conversation, that’s fine with me.
Until we have AGI it will always be humans who will judge what is rational and what isn’t. I don’t see my points as being contradictory to the site’s intention unless you want to assert that there is an absolute judge of rationality somewhere.
False dichotomy. There are definitely other options between considering all rationality subjective and requiring there to be one person who has all the answers. Many topics have been discussed here and elsewhere in the rationalist community and are considered resolved; our normal method is to use those as benchmarks.
Passed a certain threshold of rationality? What would that threshold be?
Opening that question for discussion was a large part of the point of the original post; I expect it to be answered within the next few days. Also note that the question is context-specific: I’m only referring to the expected-rationality threshold here at Less Wrong.
Do you think that Aumann has passed this threshold? Who will judge who passed it and who didn’t? Of course we could use religion as a filter but this only tells us that religion has become a salient example of supposed irrationality.
Religion is one of the benchmarks, yes, and there are reasons for that. (No, I don’t intend to discuss them; perhaps some of the other posters will give you relevant links if you ask.) As to how the passing of those benchmarks is judged, the whole group is involved in that by way of voting and discussion, and so far that appears to be a useful method that’s less subject to bias than traditional forums with formal moderation.
As for the non-subjective definition of rationality I think this is highly questionable even from a bayesian perspective. I’ll say it again: even bayesian superintelligences will disagree if they have different priors. So the question becomes: is there a correct prior? AFAIK this question is still open.
We don’t have a rationally-determined, uncontroversial method for determining priors, so that obviously won’t be one of the benchmarks that we expect people to pass. Using Bayesian reasoning could be, though, or updating because of evidence regardless of the method.
I have other things to do with my evening, so I will probably not be responding to further posts on this thread until tomorrow, and I may not wind up getting back to this thread at all.
I don’t see anything in your answer that is worthwhile for me to comment on, so yes I consider this finished.
The recently downvoted posts I see begin with “I’m not going to read all of your post, but”, “I’ll be the judge of that.” and “Fuck you”. I don’t think it’s very surprising those have been downvoted. Consider whether other people are likely to feel you’ve added something useful to the discussion when you post and you’ll probably avoid the downvotes. If you just feel the need to vent occasionally then accept the karma hit as the price for your satisfaction.
Can you be more specific, except regarding the “Fuck you” comment?
My view:
“I’m not going to read all of your post, but”
I had already read a considerable part of the post, commented once and read other comments. Based on what I had already read and understood I just decided I didn’t want to read more of the post(I think this is my right) but since I had already thought about what I read and the other replies considerably I nevertheless decided to comment based on the information I had. I could have made that very same comment without mentioning the fact that I didn’t (intend) to read the whole thing but I decided to be honest about the state of my knowledge so I added that in. So from my perspective I’m being penalized for honest self disclosure.
“I’ll be the judge of that.” Was given as an answer to someone suggesting how I should use my time. I still don’t see where I’m wrong with that.
I’m all ears to hear your point of view.
I downvoted all three.
In the first case, my downvote had nothing to do with whether you’d read the entire article or not. It had to do with your apparent lack of understanding of the purpose of the site. You came very close to suggesting that rationality and irrationality are subjective, and essentially indicated that you think rationality shouldn’t be valued as highly as is the norm here. The comments about other posters’ rationality seemed inappropriate, too: We’re here to learn to be more rational, and all of us have areas of irrationality to work on.
The downvote in the second case was based primarily on tone: Morendil offered what appears to me to be a suggestion on how to avoid being downvoted in the future (I’ll grant that it’s not the best advice that could have been given, but it seems to me to have been given in good faith if nothing else), and you responded in a way that looks both defensive and status-oriented to me, without actually adding any useful information. Such reactions are rarely useful, especially here. If you’d stated your disagreement in a way that opened the issue up for discussion, rather than apparently trying to end the conversation by asserting dominance, I wouldn’t’ve downvoted you. In fact, I may even have upvoted in that case; I like to see good discussions of our group norms—at least, the norms that don’t define the group.
If I understood you correctly the part after the colon is referencing my viewpoint right? I don’t get what is wrong with it unless you want to assert that there are already lots of people here with 100% rationality who don’t need to work on it anymore.
Incorrect; I brought it up because it’s part of how-things-are-here that you seemed not to realize that we realize. We acknowledge that we’re not perfectly rational, or even rational to the limits of what human minds can accomplish, but we still do have expectations and standards.
Quoting myself:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1lv/the_wannabe_rational/1gei
I don’t disbelieve you, but that’s not what I was trying to get at. This site is intended for people who are trying to improve their rationality and have already passed a certain threshold of rationality. The top post poses the question of where that threshold should be, not whether we should have one at all. At least three of the points in your original comment are in conflict with that intention:
We do have a non-subjective definition of rationality, by the way.
Until we have AGI it will always be humans who will judge what is rational and what isn’t. I don’t see my points as being contradictory to the site’s intention unless you want to assert that there is an absolute judge of rationality somewhere.
Passed a certain threshold of rationality? What would that threshold be? Do you think that Aumann has passed this threshold? Who will judge who passed it and who didn’t? Of course we could use religion as a filter but this only tells us that religion has become a salient example of supposed irrationality.
As for the non-subjective definition of rationality I think this is highly questionable even from a bayesian perspective. I’ll say it again: even bayesian superintelligences will disagree if they have different priors. So the question becomes: is there a correct prior? AFAIK this question is still open.
And as humans we certainly all have different priors which implies my point:
I have other things to do with my evening, so I will probably not be responding to further posts on this thread until tomorrow, and I may not wind up getting back to this thread at all. If someone else would like to pick up the conversation, that’s fine with me.
False dichotomy. There are definitely other options between considering all rationality subjective and requiring there to be one person who has all the answers. Many topics have been discussed here and elsewhere in the rationalist community and are considered resolved; our normal method is to use those as benchmarks.
Opening that question for discussion was a large part of the point of the original post; I expect it to be answered within the next few days. Also note that the question is context-specific: I’m only referring to the expected-rationality threshold here at Less Wrong.
Religion is one of the benchmarks, yes, and there are reasons for that. (No, I don’t intend to discuss them; perhaps some of the other posters will give you relevant links if you ask.) As to how the passing of those benchmarks is judged, the whole group is involved in that by way of voting and discussion, and so far that appears to be a useful method that’s less subject to bias than traditional forums with formal moderation.
We don’t have a rationally-determined, uncontroversial method for determining priors, so that obviously won’t be one of the benchmarks that we expect people to pass. Using Bayesian reasoning could be, though, or updating because of evidence regardless of the method.
I don’t see anything in your answer that is worthwhile for me to comment on, so yes I consider this finished.