You used a sockpuppet specifically to deceive gwern. If you are surprised that observers interpret that as defection, pay attention to your surprise and learn something. I don’t know why you’re having conversations with yourself, but that is the very origin of the name “sockpuppet.”
You used a sockpuppet specifically to deceive gwern.
That phrasing makes it sound like the purpose was malicious; “deception” seems to imply “defection” in a way that “trickery” or “guile” doesn’t. Despite the negative connotations, I’ll keep using the word you introduced, with the intent of signalling good faith. I’m perfectly comfortable using trickery and guile if the consequence is actually easing communication and decreasing level of hostility between members of this here community; what I did wrong was that I did not think it through and did not execute the deception competently, and so I did a disservice to my cause.
Said cause, I believe, is the furthering of this community’s goals, namely the avoidance of existential risks, which I believed is furthered by promoting cooperation and communication between memebers; if I find it optimal to use harmless sockpuppetry to help people here get along and understand each other better, that’s what I will do. I only wish that I had had the opportunity to offer an example of such an action that didn’t seem so self-serving.
Of course, if I had been competent in executing the deception, I wouldn’t have had to explain anything to anyone, and would have been free to do good without being so inconvenienced; once I’d have ascertained the effectiveness of the method, I would have been free to explain it, and, evidence in hand, encourage others to follow the example I’d had set. Nevertheless, because I believe in the soundness of what I did, and unless I’m persuaded to do otherwise by argument or by karmic force, I shall endeavour to find more evidently altruistic opportunities to demonstrate the goodness of this kind of deception. If you, or any other reader, wish to argue against me doing that rather than simply and effortlessly downvote me into oblivion, I’ll gladly hear them out.
If you are surprised that observers interpret that as defection, pay attention to your surprise and learn something.
I can’t say I’d be surprised if they did (although there isn’t much evidence that they really did, yet); I wish to believe what is true. That’s why I openly and candidly asked; to measure and probe the result of the experiment, look at the city, rather than merely speculate in a dark room. If some observers see it as defection and I don’t, that means we have different standards for what constitutes defection. It would be in my interest to conform to their standards, depending on their number, but I’d rather try first to convince them of the validity of my own, in which I sincerely believe. The result of this open and frank confrontation would be:
If they can convince me that my standards are invalid, I will change them, and my behaviour accordingly.
If I can convince them that my standards are valid, I will keep behaving as I have until now, and everyone’s standards will be improved.
Either outcome is preferable to the situation where I and them have different standards and I behave to accommodate them out of fear of reprisals rather than out of sincere conviction; that agree-to-disagree situation would be anti-rational. It is also quick and easy, so it might be what ends up happening, but I sincerely don’t wish for it; I’d rather be reasoned into changing my behaviour than persuaded by force.
As for your last point: when it comes to maintaining a conversation with myself, I’m trying to exemplify what I believe is exemplary behaviour in dealing with disagreements; that if one has to point out mistakes, one should do so calmly and politely, that If one has to take criticism, do so graciously and humbly, and that one should not take offence at the mistakes of others, nor should they take offense at others pointing out one’s mistakes.
To sum it up in the briefest terms; sorry if this looked bad, I was honestly trying to do good.
EDIT: After giving it additional throught, I’ve remembered this wonderful piece. Consider the arguing done; I am now convinced that what I attempted to do was ill-advised, and I apologize for not having noticed I was taking the wrong path sooner. I will from now on refrain from attempting dangerous utilitarian acrobatics and will stick to more conventional morality and simpler rules-of-thumb.
After giving it additional throught, I’ve remembered this wonderful piece. Consider the arguing done; I am now convinced that what I attempted to do was ill-advised, and I apologize for not having noticed I was taking the wrong path sooner. I will from now on refrain from attempting dangerous utilitarian acrobatics and will stick to more conventional morality and simpler rules-of-thumb.
I don’t know how to delete an account yet, but I suppose it’d be easy enough to go and find out. So it’s going to be force then? You’re not going to attempt to convince me?
Because, I mean, what’s to stop me from complying with the letter of what you’re attempting to coerce me into doing without respecting the spirit of it, by deleting this account too, and trying the same routine again with different accounts (that you don’t know of, that don’t exist yet...)?
Both accounts lost, Ritalin and Rational Brony, would be relatively young and poor in karma, and I don’t feel especially attached to either of them. Heck, it would make things more comfortable for me; I’d actually know the password to all my new accounts. Perhaps I’d even bother to link them to emails.
Maybe I’d get caught, maybe I wouldn’t; after all, you’re banking on me learning something from karmic feedback, but, because you haven’t bothered to argue or convince, you have no control over what lesson, precisely, I learn.
Not to mention that I’d have the possibility of using any and all accounts existing future or past to downvote you as much as possible in petty revenge. If I were especially petty, I could invest quite a lot of effort in gaining karma, going as far as compromising my principles and posting the way I’d feel would be most popular, just for the purpose of gaining the power to downvote you as much as possible, going as far as abstaining from downvoting anyone else just for the sake of concentrating it all on you.
,Now, I’m not angry or mad or anything, just a little disappointed. And I solemnly declare that I have no intention to do any of those things (though you only have my word for it). Ethical injunction, remember? At worst, I’d simply not delete either, and create a new account from scratch. Or give up on commenting on this site altogether. I’m just showing you how I can do those things, and how your rash, violent decision, could at worst backfire and at best achieve nothing (which it already kind of does, since I already said I’ve given up on using RB). So how about instead of acting rashly and violently, you actually tried using those nice arguing skills rationalists are alleged to have?
I’m leaving this post public rather than PM it simply as more evidence of how the karma system is rather inadequate because of the lack of communication involved in it, and how easily it can generate illusions of simple and double transparency, ill will, and adverse and unintended reactions. We’d be better off with moderators and clear predefined, agreed-upon rules, rather than have everyone follow their fancy and let the recipient take a guess. People still willing to use the karma system against this account to, I don’t know, show solidarity with Robert, or disapproval of my tone, or dismissal of the problems I’m trying to point out, or whatever, are of course welcome to go ahead, for all the good (or lack thereof) it will do.[shrugs]
I don’t know how to delete an account yet, but I suppose it’d be easy enough to go and find out.
Right side of the page > Preferences > Delete
So it’s going to be force then? You’re not going to attempt to convince me?
The preponderance of the evidence suggests you’re a troll, and as such I won’t engage in discussion with you. If you delete your sockpuppet, however, this would be substantial evidence against that, and I would reconsider. I downvoted your sockpuppet to a score well below zero, because that will remove any downvoting power it has. I probably should not have blanket downvoted Rational_Brony as much as I did (I think I only gave it around 10 downvotes, and most of those were on comments I would have downvoted regardless), since presumably you would keep that account. Should you actually confine yourself to one account, I will go back through and remove downvotes that I don’t feel are deserved. I downvoted Ritalin for a number of reasons though, primarily because you admit to having manipulated the karma system. Because you have said many times you have no respect for it as a system, it makes me even less likely to trust that you will not abuse it in the future. As good or bad as it is manipulating it makes it worse. My primary motivation was removing that sockpuppet’s ability to abuse the karma system.
since I already said I’ve given up on using RB
I had actually assumed you would keep RB and give up on Ritalin, and if you delete RB, I am happy to go through and reconsider the blanket downvoting of Ritalin that I did, although it would be substantially more work.
You used a sockpuppet specifically to deceive gwern. If you are surprised that observers interpret that as defection, pay attention to your surprise and learn something. I don’t know why you’re having conversations with yourself, but that is the very origin of the name “sockpuppet.”
That phrasing makes it sound like the purpose was malicious; “deception” seems to imply “defection” in a way that “trickery” or “guile” doesn’t. Despite the negative connotations, I’ll keep using the word you introduced, with the intent of signalling good faith. I’m perfectly comfortable using trickery and guile if the consequence is actually easing communication and decreasing level of hostility between members of this here community; what I did wrong was that I did not think it through and did not execute the deception competently, and so I did a disservice to my cause.
Said cause, I believe, is the furthering of this community’s goals, namely the avoidance of existential risks, which I believed is furthered by promoting cooperation and communication between memebers; if I find it optimal to use harmless sockpuppetry to help people here get along and understand each other better, that’s what I will do. I only wish that I had had the opportunity to offer an example of such an action that didn’t seem so self-serving.
Of course, if I had been competent in executing the deception, I wouldn’t have had to explain anything to anyone, and would have been free to do good without being so inconvenienced; once I’d have ascertained the effectiveness of the method, I would have been free to explain it, and, evidence in hand, encourage others to follow the example I’d had set. Nevertheless, because I believe in the soundness of what I did, and unless I’m persuaded to do otherwise by argument or by karmic force, I shall endeavour to find more evidently altruistic opportunities to demonstrate the goodness of this kind of deception. If you, or any other reader, wish to argue against me doing that rather than simply and effortlessly downvote me into oblivion, I’ll gladly hear them out.
I can’t say I’d be surprised if they did (although there isn’t much evidence that they really did, yet); I wish to believe what is true. That’s why I openly and candidly asked; to measure and probe the result of the experiment, look at the city, rather than merely speculate in a dark room. If some observers see it as defection and I don’t, that means we have different standards for what constitutes defection. It would be in my interest to conform to their standards, depending on their number, but I’d rather try first to convince them of the validity of my own, in which I sincerely believe. The result of this open and frank confrontation would be:
If they can convince me that my standards are invalid, I will change them, and my behaviour accordingly.
If I can convince them that my standards are valid, I will keep behaving as I have until now, and everyone’s standards will be improved.
Either outcome is preferable to the situation where I and them have different standards and I behave to accommodate them out of fear of reprisals rather than out of sincere conviction; that agree-to-disagree situation would be anti-rational. It is also quick and easy, so it might be what ends up happening, but I sincerely don’t wish for it; I’d rather be reasoned into changing my behaviour than persuaded by force.
As for your last point: when it comes to maintaining a conversation with myself, I’m trying to exemplify what I believe is exemplary behaviour in dealing with disagreements; that if one has to point out mistakes, one should do so calmly and politely, that If one has to take criticism, do so graciously and humbly, and that one should not take offence at the mistakes of others, nor should they take offense at others pointing out one’s mistakes.
To sum it up in the briefest terms; sorry if this looked bad, I was honestly trying to do good.
EDIT: After giving it additional throught, I’ve remembered this wonderful piece. Consider the arguing done; I am now convinced that what I attempted to do was ill-advised, and I apologize for not having noticed I was taking the wrong path sooner. I will from now on refrain from attempting dangerous utilitarian acrobatics and will stick to more conventional morality and simpler rules-of-thumb.
Not sure if you meant LW karma, but I will be downvoting every comment made by both accounts until you delete one of them.
Edit: Ritalin has deleted his Rational_Brony account and I have removed downvotes I felt were undeserved.
Did you even read what I wrote earlier?
I don’t know how to delete an account yet, but I suppose it’d be easy enough to go and find out. So it’s going to be force then? You’re not going to attempt to convince me?
Because, I mean, what’s to stop me from complying with the letter of what you’re attempting to coerce me into doing without respecting the spirit of it, by deleting this account too, and trying the same routine again with different accounts (that you don’t know of, that don’t exist yet...)? Both accounts lost, Ritalin and Rational Brony, would be relatively young and poor in karma, and I don’t feel especially attached to either of them. Heck, it would make things more comfortable for me; I’d actually know the password to all my new accounts. Perhaps I’d even bother to link them to emails.
Maybe I’d get caught, maybe I wouldn’t; after all, you’re banking on me learning something from karmic feedback, but, because you haven’t bothered to argue or convince, you have no control over what lesson, precisely, I learn.
Not to mention that I’d have the possibility of using any and all accounts existing future or past to downvote you as much as possible in petty revenge. If I were especially petty, I could invest quite a lot of effort in gaining karma, going as far as compromising my principles and posting the way I’d feel would be most popular, just for the purpose of gaining the power to downvote you as much as possible, going as far as abstaining from downvoting anyone else just for the sake of concentrating it all on you.
,Now, I’m not angry or mad or anything, just a little disappointed. And I solemnly declare that I have no intention to do any of those things (though you only have my word for it). Ethical injunction, remember? At worst, I’d simply not delete either, and create a new account from scratch. Or give up on commenting on this site altogether. I’m just showing you how I can do those things, and how your rash, violent decision, could at worst backfire and at best achieve nothing (which it already kind of does, since I already said I’ve given up on using RB). So how about instead of acting rashly and violently, you actually tried using those nice arguing skills rationalists are alleged to have?
I’m leaving this post public rather than PM it simply as more evidence of how the karma system is rather inadequate because of the lack of communication involved in it, and how easily it can generate illusions of simple and double transparency, ill will, and adverse and unintended reactions. We’d be better off with moderators and clear predefined, agreed-upon rules, rather than have everyone follow their fancy and let the recipient take a guess. People still willing to use the karma system against this account to, I don’t know, show solidarity with Robert, or disapproval of my tone, or dismissal of the problems I’m trying to point out, or whatever, are of course welcome to go ahead, for all the good (or lack thereof) it will do.[shrugs]
Right side of the page > Preferences > Delete
The preponderance of the evidence suggests you’re a troll, and as such I won’t engage in discussion with you. If you delete your sockpuppet, however, this would be substantial evidence against that, and I would reconsider. I downvoted your sockpuppet to a score well below zero, because that will remove any downvoting power it has. I probably should not have blanket downvoted Rational_Brony as much as I did (I think I only gave it around 10 downvotes, and most of those were on comments I would have downvoted regardless), since presumably you would keep that account. Should you actually confine yourself to one account, I will go back through and remove downvotes that I don’t feel are deserved. I downvoted Ritalin for a number of reasons though, primarily because you admit to having manipulated the karma system. Because you have said many times you have no respect for it as a system, it makes me even less likely to trust that you will not abuse it in the future. As good or bad as it is manipulating it makes it worse. My primary motivation was removing that sockpuppet’s ability to abuse the karma system.
I had actually assumed you would keep RB and give up on Ritalin, and if you delete RB, I am happy to go through and reconsider the blanket downvoting of Ritalin that I did, although it would be substantially more work.