Ah okay I have just looked at your profile. Perhaps you are thinking of this post: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/SHryHTDXuoLuykgcu?commentId=cgT4ipPPQ6HcG6H8p. I just read it and unfortunately I do not think it was downvoted because of disagreements with LessWrong. I’m not much of a downvotey kinda guy myself, but I think it’s pretty reasonable to downvote this. If you want my honest feedback:
The metaphor seems kind of tortured to me.
I don’t find the analogy very insightful or revealing.
There are a decent number of typos.
The paragraphs and sentences are too long.
EDIT: To be more charitable, FWIW I do understand the impulse when something you really liked gets downvoted to criticize the readers and say that they just must not be smart enough to understand it. I have done this too, see here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZRToRRSirgwNeLLuL/goedel-s-ontological-proof#gruZ5HzqnxneaKgTZ. But it is an impulse that as a writer one should try to fight against, as criticism (even self-criticism, if necessary) is the only way to improve.
In response to this, I would ask what you mean by ‘kinda tortured’ ; do you mean it’s been extended beyond where it applies? I realized people might assume this and made sure to point out areas where that was the case in the post itself, as well as to modify the metaphor where possible and appropriate. I have seen other, equally (non) applicable metaphors being upvoted on LessWrong, so this still confuses me.
If you don’t mind, I would like to know why you don’t find the analogy insightful; why doesn’t the reasoning about the analogue transfer over to the thing itself?
Where are the typos? I wasn’t aware of any.
Anyway, I appreciate getting any feedback at all on this ( but it’s certainly not the only reason why I think the problem exists).
I am sorry, I would like to engage on giving you detailed feedback but I am not really able to do that, because I have other things I need to do with my time. I hope that is understandable.
More generally, this is kind of “rules of engagement” you agree to when you put something out there. I’m not denigrating you by providing this criticism, in fact it is meant in a positive spirit (I promise <3). But I’m not able to provide detailed notes like a lecturer on every post that I don’t like, and no-one else on LessWrong is obligated to do so either, right? They engaged with it enough to either up-or-downvote it, and that’s something. But a karma system is designed to separate posts people think are good from posts people don’t think are good.
If you’re asking me, that post is not super good. A different reader, a different audience, may disagree. I think you show promising signs of someone who could be a good writer. I don’t want to discourage you! This sort of analogical thinking, seeing X in Y, it’s all great.
But for someone to want to read it you must also work on the craft of showing me why I should care. Showing that you respect me enough as a reader to spare me from typos, to explain why an analogy is useful (in a way that I will find satisfying), to make your sentences enjoyable to read. I know I can work on that, we all can. :)
“I am sorry, I would like to engage on giving you detailed feedback but I am not really able to do that, because I have other things I need to do with my time. I hope that is understandable.” It is; I think this encapsulates exactly why it’s a good thing that you didn’t downvote the post yourself; a cursory reading is not sufficient to tell you whether the analogy contains insights, etc. You have no obligation to downvote or read the post. The problem is when people make instinctive judgments for reasons they couldn’t articulate at the time of making them, and then downvote on the basis of said judgments. Also, the same could be said of upvotes, though I think it matters less.
“But I’m not able to provide detailed notes like a lecturer on every post that I don’t like, and no-one else on LessWrong is obligated to do so either, right?”
Not unless you cast a vote. If you do, then in my opinion you should at least have allowed the reasons why to coalesce into sufficiently sharp focus that you could explain why.
“They engaged with it enough to either up-or-downvote it, and that’s something”
It’s something negative from my perspective, because they effectively censored the idea which I still think is correct, without changing my mind. So to me, they drowned out a useful, true idea. A debate would be far more productive.
“Showing that you respect me enough as a reader to spare me from typos” I would like to know where these are, so I can fix them.
“to make your sentences enjoyable to read” If that becomes the objective function of writing, then Goodhart’s law might make truth and logical coherence almost irrelevant.
(Clarification: I meant ‘irrelevant as criteria which are actually employed when writing’ , not irrelevant overall. )
I am completely against using arguments that way, however I think it should be possible to avoid that particular ‘basin of attraction’ without sacrificing the possibility of debate (or even of frequent debate).
Edit: upon reflection, there are probably exceptional situations in which I would endorse using arguments as soldiers, but I don’t think they’re at all likely to arise here very often.
Reply to the edit: I absolutely did not say anyone ‘just must not be smart enough to understand it’, or imply that, or intend to. However, they may be operating from inside a different framework, which is not conducive to them understanding, which would be a more charitable interpretation.
I mean it seems like the person who posted that managed to have interesting back-and-forths with people in the comments?
I agree there are some absolutely terrible commenters on LessWrong, and to be honest, I think they should be tolerated less than they currently are. But this post did have interesting debate, right? People just thought it was wrong.
If you see their later posts on the same topic you’ll notice more of this dynamic where fewer and fewer users engage with them, while the downvotes accumulate anyway. My position would be not to downvote anything to far below 0 until you understand it, unless you have something like a ‘proof’ that it’s false(not necessarily as rigorous as a purely mathematical or logical one, but more than just believing it isn’t even wrong).
Would you be able to link me to an example?
Ah okay I have just looked at your profile. Perhaps you are thinking of this post: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/SHryHTDXuoLuykgcu?commentId=cgT4ipPPQ6HcG6H8p. I just read it and unfortunately I do not think it was downvoted because of disagreements with LessWrong. I’m not much of a downvotey kinda guy myself, but I think it’s pretty reasonable to downvote this. If you want my honest feedback:
The metaphor seems kind of tortured to me.
I don’t find the analogy very insightful or revealing.
There are a decent number of typos.
The paragraphs and sentences are too long.
EDIT: To be more charitable, FWIW I do understand the impulse when something you really liked gets downvoted to criticize the readers and say that they just must not be smart enough to understand it. I have done this too, see here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZRToRRSirgwNeLLuL/goedel-s-ontological-proof#gruZ5HzqnxneaKgTZ. But it is an impulse that as a writer one should try to fight against, as criticism (even self-criticism, if necessary) is the only way to improve.
In response to this, I would ask what you mean by ‘kinda tortured’ ; do you mean it’s been extended beyond where it applies? I realized people might assume this and made sure to point out areas where that was the case in the post itself, as well as to modify the metaphor where possible and appropriate. I have seen other, equally (non) applicable metaphors being upvoted on LessWrong, so this still confuses me.
If you don’t mind, I would like to know why you don’t find the analogy insightful; why doesn’t the reasoning about the analogue transfer over to the thing itself?
Where are the typos? I wasn’t aware of any.
Anyway, I appreciate getting any feedback at all on this ( but it’s certainly not the only reason why I think the problem exists).
I am sorry, I would like to engage on giving you detailed feedback but I am not really able to do that, because I have other things I need to do with my time. I hope that is understandable.
More generally, this is kind of “rules of engagement” you agree to when you put something out there. I’m not denigrating you by providing this criticism, in fact it is meant in a positive spirit (I promise <3). But I’m not able to provide detailed notes like a lecturer on every post that I don’t like, and no-one else on LessWrong is obligated to do so either, right? They engaged with it enough to either up-or-downvote it, and that’s something. But a karma system is designed to separate posts people think are good from posts people don’t think are good.
If you’re asking me, that post is not super good. A different reader, a different audience, may disagree. I think you show promising signs of someone who could be a good writer. I don’t want to discourage you! This sort of analogical thinking, seeing X in Y, it’s all great.
But for someone to want to read it you must also work on the craft of showing me why I should care. Showing that you respect me enough as a reader to spare me from typos, to explain why an analogy is useful (in a way that I will find satisfying), to make your sentences enjoyable to read. I know I can work on that, we all can. :)
“I am sorry, I would like to engage on giving you detailed feedback but I am not really able to do that, because I have other things I need to do with my time. I hope that is understandable.” It is; I think this encapsulates exactly why it’s a good thing that you didn’t downvote the post yourself; a cursory reading is not sufficient to tell you whether the analogy contains insights, etc. You have no obligation to downvote or read the post. The problem is when people make instinctive judgments for reasons they couldn’t articulate at the time of making them, and then downvote on the basis of said judgments. Also, the same could be said of upvotes, though I think it matters less.
“But I’m not able to provide detailed notes like a lecturer on every post that I don’t like, and no-one else on LessWrong is obligated to do so either, right?”
Not unless you cast a vote. If you do, then in my opinion you should at least have allowed the reasons why to coalesce into sufficiently sharp focus that you could explain why.
“They engaged with it enough to either up-or-downvote it, and that’s something”
It’s something negative from my perspective, because they effectively censored the idea which I still think is correct, without changing my mind. So to me, they drowned out a useful, true idea. A debate would be far more productive.
“Showing that you respect me enough as a reader to spare me from typos” I would like to know where these are, so I can fix them.
“to make your sentences enjoyable to read” If that becomes the objective function of writing, then Goodhart’s law might make truth and logical coherence almost irrelevant.
(Clarification: I meant ‘irrelevant as criteria which are actually employed when writing’ , not irrelevant overall. )
https://www.lesswrong.com/w/arguments-as-soldiers I think you should consider what would happen to this website if it functioned the way you desire, without judgment on quality of writing.
I am completely against using arguments that way, however I think it should be possible to avoid that particular ‘basin of attraction’ without sacrificing the possibility of debate (or even of frequent debate).
Edit: upon reflection, there are probably exceptional situations in which I would endorse using arguments as soldiers, but I don’t think they’re at all likely to arise here very often.
Reply to the edit: I absolutely did not say anyone ‘just must not be smart enough to understand it’, or imply that, or intend to. However, they may be operating from inside a different framework, which is not conducive to them understanding, which would be a more charitable interpretation.
I was considering doing just this in my comment but decided against it, so now I will. This post: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xHMEtKz68fXDjA9H3/third-order-cognition-as-a-model-of-superintelligence lays out a complex, potentially internally consistent model of superintelligence ( I wouldn’t know as I haven’t read it due to the ‘cognitive labour’ involved.) In another comment, someone explained that this, along with basically the other points I made in my comment above, was the reason why the post had all its upvotes cancelled out. It might be in the comment section here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/8CJ5f2WT4M6BR64yh/visionary-arrogance-and-a-criticism-of-lesswrong-voting#g6iR4DNhAMphexhi8 Notice @Richard_Kennaway’s comment.
I mean it seems like the person who posted that managed to have interesting back-and-forths with people in the comments?
I agree there are some absolutely terrible commenters on LessWrong, and to be honest, I think they should be tolerated less than they currently are. But this post did have interesting debate, right? People just thought it was wrong.
If you see their later posts on the same topic you’ll notice more of this dynamic where fewer and fewer users engage with them, while the downvotes accumulate anyway. My position would be not to downvote anything to far below 0 until you understand it, unless you have something like a ‘proof’ that it’s false(not necessarily as rigorous as a purely mathematical or logical one, but more than just believing it isn’t even wrong).