My substantive arguments are that UFOs are well-documented cross-culturally and across millennia, consistent in physical effects, phenomenology etc down to tiny details (like the interactions of their EM fields with car engines—do you want me to go into that in detail?), and demonstrate advanced engineering (like relativistic accelerations). What substance did you have in mind?
Going into detail about any of it. Including sources of evidence which are actually discussed and integrated into your argument rather than a few scattered links which it is very unlikely any readers will click through because it is not clear what of relevance is behind them. Making fewer claims, or expanding the post 10x without introducing claims.
My claim is that the rationality community has displayed “embarrassing negligence” in investigating the topic. I’ve provided links to catch the negligent up to the bare minimum of literacy, with not-so-subtle reminders that the problem here really is rote ignorance of an extensive field alongside overconfidence based on nothing. I’m not here to handhold the unfamiliar through fewer claims (or write posts any longer/less information-dense than they need to be), but can elaborate to any level of detail desired. I thought that was obvious with the “I’m something like the world’s #1 UFO expert” line, i.e., “I will address the most common counterarguments, but if you don’t know what a neural net is, you probably shouldn’t engage Eliezer Yudkowsky on AI risk.”
“Their psyops are smart, reactive, and contextual, maintaining strategic ambiguity, flooding the noosphere with misinformation”
Speaking as an outspoken UAP transparency topic proponent, if your own goal was to poison whatever well Rat collective opinion represents, you could hardly have done better than the style of your post.
And I’m saying that as someone who must also take some some sort of sick delight in antagonizing Rat opinion-o-sphere (the Ratgeist?).
″I’m something like the world’s #1 UFO expert”? Could you turn off your readers any more expediently with such a claim? UFOlogy attracts thousands of readers—do you really think you know more than the most calmly informed of them, or feel that such a rank-ordering is even constructive?
Well since you were familiar with the DJT tweet on releasing UAP files, you’re probably tracking this fresher development as well:
I am content with the quality of replies via PM. The UFOnauts are better at poisoning the well; “psyop” (what Earthlings do, what general/Machievellian intelligences do, why Rats are worried about AGI psyops) is incredibly obvious. The ratgeist successfully avoided looking at UFOs because, based on LessWrong comments from self-described genius Eliezer and Wei Dei from the 2010 period, they mentally categorised UFOs alongside Bigfoot and ghosts.
Fatima, fairies, leprechauns, and Moroni were already explored by Project Blue Book’s astronomers. If you have any other explanation for Bigfoot UFOnauts and ghosts like Zeitoun, I’ll hear them. The reason why even the UFOlogically-unfamiliar, like Robin (suggesting hidden orbital projectors, at least prior to the Palomar Sky Survey UFO photos), converge on the Operation Trojan Horse solution space is because that’s really just what’s left, once you condition on non-human agents interfering with humanity and do appropriate research, and more importantly actually perform Bayesian updates rather than shibboleth-spouting and sanity-signalling, into the Fortean corpus (like the transient “inventors” of the 19th century airships or the mass eyewitness angel abduction of a Roman child into the sky that inspired the Trisagion hymn).
Something like the world’s #1 AI safety expert wrote a fanfic (I prefer the writing of the world’s #1 UFO expert) in which rational!Potter dumps a whole bunch of super rational arguments as to why Voldemort couldn’t be real, and then the adults in the room just completely ignore him and talk about where the immortality Horcrux might be hidden, leaving him shocked and dismayed that his completely-clueless first-principles analysis was less than persuasive to ostensibly less rational authorities with a clue or two. If that is the feeling I inspire in the reader, consider me more sickly delighted.
I don’t have any comparative advantage in analysing McCasland’s disappearance, other than the background assumptions that, as whistleblowers have attested under oath, the legacy programs have killed, harmed, and harassed people to protect the secret (classified under a memo by Don Quarles and the transclassified foreign nuclear material exemptions under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954). James Forrestal and Mark McCandlish are interesting.
How could you not appreciate the Charlize Theron puns?! Eä! Eä! Charlize fhtherogn!
>classified under a memo by Don Quarles so a statement like this for example. May be true, may not be true. Stating it outright without citation to source is going to repel people who aren’t bought into your ontology. Even me, I can tell you lots about bureaucratic developments during the period of Quarles’ ascent and in the organizational space that he inhabited (guessing fewer than .01% of readers could say same), but I still couldn’t have made that statement. It’s beside the point that I would like to know what you’re citing. The point is, making source-less statements in a contested ontology will repel the topic’s opponents.
My substantive arguments are that UFOs are well-documented cross-culturally and across millennia, consistent in physical effects, phenomenology etc down to tiny details (like the interactions of their EM fields with car engines—do you want me to go into that in detail?), and demonstrate advanced engineering (like relativistic accelerations). What substance did you have in mind?
Going into detail about any of it. Including sources of evidence which are actually discussed and integrated into your argument rather than a few scattered links which it is very unlikely any readers will click through because it is not clear what of relevance is behind them. Making fewer claims, or expanding the post 10x without introducing claims.
My claim is that the rationality community has displayed “embarrassing negligence” in investigating the topic. I’ve provided links to catch the negligent up to the bare minimum of literacy, with not-so-subtle reminders that the problem here really is rote ignorance of an extensive field alongside overconfidence based on nothing. I’m not here to handhold the unfamiliar through fewer claims (or write posts any longer/less information-dense than they need to be), but can elaborate to any level of detail desired. I thought that was obvious with the “I’m something like the world’s #1 UFO expert” line, i.e., “I will address the most common counterarguments, but if you don’t know what a neural net is, you probably shouldn’t engage Eliezer Yudkowsky on AI risk.”
it’s not about engaging with you, it’s about engaging with your post, which no one will bother to do unless you make it better.
I’m good! Engage away.
“Their psyops are smart, reactive, and contextual, maintaining strategic ambiguity, flooding the noosphere with misinformation”
Speaking as an outspoken UAP transparency topic proponent, if your own goal was to poison whatever well Rat collective opinion represents, you could hardly have done better than the style of your post.
And I’m saying that as someone who must also take some some sort of sick delight in antagonizing Rat opinion-o-sphere (the Ratgeist?).
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/open-hidden-open-thread-4235/comment/223253023
″I’m something like the world’s #1 UFO expert”? Could you turn off your readers any more expediently with such a claim? UFOlogy attracts thousands of readers—do you really think you know more than the most calmly informed of them, or feel that such a rank-ordering is even constructive?
Well since you were familiar with the DJT tweet on releasing UAP files, you’re probably tracking this fresher development as well:
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/open-thread-424/comment/225258377
What do you map out as possible etiologies for his disappearance?
I am content with the quality of replies via PM. The UFOnauts are better at poisoning the well; “psyop” (what Earthlings do, what general/Machievellian intelligences do, why Rats are worried about AGI psyops) is incredibly obvious. The ratgeist successfully avoided looking at UFOs because, based on LessWrong comments from self-described genius Eliezer and Wei Dei from the 2010 period, they mentally categorised UFOs alongside Bigfoot and ghosts.
Fatima, fairies, leprechauns, and Moroni were already explored by Project Blue Book’s astronomers. If you have any other explanation for Bigfoot UFOnauts and ghosts like Zeitoun, I’ll hear them. The reason why even the UFOlogically-unfamiliar, like Robin (suggesting hidden orbital projectors, at least prior to the Palomar Sky Survey UFO photos), converge on the Operation Trojan Horse solution space is because that’s really just what’s left, once you condition on non-human agents interfering with humanity and do appropriate research, and more importantly actually perform Bayesian updates rather than shibboleth-spouting and sanity-signalling, into the Fortean corpus (like the transient “inventors” of the 19th century airships or the mass eyewitness angel abduction of a Roman child into the sky that inspired the Trisagion hymn).
Something like the world’s #1 AI safety expert wrote a fanfic (I prefer the writing of the world’s #1 UFO expert) in which rational!Potter dumps a whole bunch of super rational arguments as to why Voldemort couldn’t be real, and then the adults in the room just completely ignore him and talk about where the immortality Horcrux might be hidden, leaving him shocked and dismayed that his completely-clueless first-principles analysis was less than persuasive to ostensibly less rational authorities with a clue or two. If that is the feeling I inspire in the reader, consider me more sickly delighted.
I don’t have any comparative advantage in analysing McCasland’s disappearance, other than the background assumptions that, as whistleblowers have attested under oath, the legacy programs have killed, harmed, and harassed people to protect the secret (classified under a memo by Don Quarles and the transclassified foreign nuclear material exemptions under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954). James Forrestal and Mark McCandlish are interesting.
How could you not appreciate the Charlize Theron puns?! Eä! Eä! Charlize fhtherogn!
Well the 🛸 discussion continues in today’s ACX OT https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/open-thread-426/comment/232146722
>classified under a memo by Don Quarles
so a statement like this for example. May be true, may not be true. Stating it outright without citation to source is going to repel people who aren’t bought into your ontology. Even me, I can tell you lots about bureaucratic developments during the period of Quarles’ ascent and in the organizational space that he inhabited (guessing fewer than .01% of readers could say same), but I still couldn’t have made that statement. It’s beside the point that I would like to know what you’re citing. The point is, making source-less statements in a contested ontology will repel the topic’s opponents.
I’m afraid I don’t know much about Ms. Theron.