Well then he should write for his blog, and sometimes have it cross posted here, rather than write for LW audience. Do you seriously need to add extra misogynistic nonsense and discuss as evidence what the borderline sociopathic PUA community thinks about women, into an otherwise good post referencing a highly interesting study by Galton? Do you really need to go this far to please online white nerdy sexually frustrated male trash?
I’ve been avoiding this thread so far because I’m kind of uncomfortable with compliments, but luckily it’s descended into insults and I’m pretty okay with those.
Yes, I have a blog. I write blog posts much more often than I write Less Wrong posts (although they’re much lower quality and scatterbrained in all senses of the word). Sometimes I want to say something about rationality, and since I happen to know of this site that’s totally all about rationality with a readership hundreds of times greater than my blog, I post it here instead of (or in addition to) my blog. I promise you I didn’t just add the PUA reference for “a Less Wrong audience”; in fact, knowing what I know all these months later, I would have specifically avoided even mentioning it for exactly the reason that’s happening right now.
I have written about 150 posts for Less Wrong, and about 1200 in my blog. Of those, I can think of three that tangentially reference pick-up artistry as an example of something, and zero that are entirely about PUA or which express explicit support for it. According to my blog tagging system, three posts is slightly more than “cartography” or “fishmen” (two posts each), but still well below “demons” (fourteen posts). I don’t think it’s unreasonable to mention a movement with some really interesting psychology behind it about 50% more than I mention hypothetical half-man half-fish entities, or a quarter as often as I mention malevolent disembodied spirits.
More importantly, now that I’m talking to you...why is your username “private_messaging”?
Originally made this account to message some people privately.
Can you explain why the first thing to update after the Galton’s amazing study into imagination, was your opinion on women in general as determined by PUA’s opinion on women vs women opinion on women (the balance of conflicting opinions)? Also, btw, it is in itself a great example of biased cognition: you run across some fact, and you update selectively; the fact should lower your weight for anyone’s evaluation of anyone, but instead it just lowers the weight for women’s evaluation of women.
Also, while I am sure that you did not consciously add it just for LW audience, if you were writing for a more general audience it does seem reasonable to assume—given that you are generally a good writer—that you would not include this sort of ‘example’ of application of the findings of Galton.
And lest I sound chauvinistic, the same is certainly true of men. I hear a lot of bad things said about men (especially with reference to what they want romantically) that I wouldn’t dream of applying to myself, my close friends, or to any man I know. But they’re so common and so well-supported that I have excellent reason to believe they’re true.
Does that really sound like someone who is doing a biased, partial update?
The PUA’s opinion on women was, nonetheless, not discounted for the typical mind fallacy. (Maybe the idea is that typical mind fallacy doesn’t work across genders or something, which would be rather interesting hypothesis, but, alas, unsupported)
Yes, I have a blog. I write blog posts much more often than I write Less Wrong posts (although they’re much lower quality and scatterbrained in all senses of the word).
Write higher quality, or make 2 sections, 1 good, 1 random. Write for general audience, i.e. no awful LW jargon and LW terminology misuse (‘rational’ actually means something, and so does ‘bayesian’). Cross post here. Come on, you said before, in calibrate your self assessments , that you have relatively low opinion on yourself.
Sometimes I want to say something about rationality, and since I happen to know of this site that’s totally all about rationality with a readership hundreds of times greater than my blog,
it’s Eliezer’s former blog, hurr, durr, it’s people who didn’t cringe too hard on stuff like http://lesswrong.com/lw/qa/the_dilemma_science_or_bayes/ . He got those readers how? He split off from Hansen. I do have high opinion of you overall. Much higher than I have of EY.
I hope I would downvote any comment containing the judgement-words “nonsense”, “sociopathic” and “trash” (referring to a subset of the LW readership) regardless of the position being advocated. The book Non-violent Communication advises making observations and expressing feelings, but avoiding rendering judgments. A “judgement” can be defined as a phrase or statement that can be expected to diminish the status or moral standing of a person or group.
Parenthetically, it has been proposed that one of the ways online forums unravel over time is that a few people who like making strong judgments show up and get into long conversations with each other, which tends to discourage participants for whom the strong judgments distract from their reasons for participating.
The judgements are very often instrumentally useful. Also, I do happen to see this subset of the users on internet every bit as negatively as I said, and so do many other people who usually don’t tell anything about it, and in so much as I do not think that seeing it more positively would be instrumentally useful, it’d not be quite honest to just see it this way and never say.
edit: also, a backgrounder. I am a game developer. We see various misogynistic crap every damn day (if looking into any online communication system). Also, as on the PUA, they see people (women) as objects, seek sexual promiscuity and shallow relationships, are deliberately manipulative, etc, etc. scoring more than enough points on a sociopathy traits list for a diagnosis (really only not scoring the positive points like charisma). What they think about women being taken as likely true is clearly a very poor example of evidence for a post about typical mind fallacy.
He has one! http://squid314.livejournal.com/
Well then he should write for his blog, and sometimes have it cross posted here, rather than write for LW audience. Do you seriously need to add extra misogynistic nonsense and discuss as evidence what the borderline sociopathic PUA community thinks about women, into an otherwise good post referencing a highly interesting study by Galton? Do you really need to go this far to please online white nerdy sexually frustrated male trash?
I’ve been avoiding this thread so far because I’m kind of uncomfortable with compliments, but luckily it’s descended into insults and I’m pretty okay with those.
Yes, I have a blog. I write blog posts much more often than I write Less Wrong posts (although they’re much lower quality and scatterbrained in all senses of the word). Sometimes I want to say something about rationality, and since I happen to know of this site that’s totally all about rationality with a readership hundreds of times greater than my blog, I post it here instead of (or in addition to) my blog. I promise you I didn’t just add the PUA reference for “a Less Wrong audience”; in fact, knowing what I know all these months later, I would have specifically avoided even mentioning it for exactly the reason that’s happening right now.
I have written about 150 posts for Less Wrong, and about 1200 in my blog. Of those, I can think of three that tangentially reference pick-up artistry as an example of something, and zero that are entirely about PUA or which express explicit support for it. According to my blog tagging system, three posts is slightly more than “cartography” or “fishmen” (two posts each), but still well below “demons” (fourteen posts). I don’t think it’s unreasonable to mention a movement with some really interesting psychology behind it about 50% more than I mention hypothetical half-man half-fish entities, or a quarter as often as I mention malevolent disembodied spirits.
More importantly, now that I’m talking to you...why is your username “private_messaging”?
Originally made this account to message some people privately.
Can you explain why the first thing to update after the Galton’s amazing study into imagination, was your opinion on women in general as determined by PUA’s opinion on women vs women opinion on women (the balance of conflicting opinions)? Also, btw, it is in itself a great example of biased cognition: you run across some fact, and you update selectively; the fact should lower your weight for anyone’s evaluation of anyone, but instead it just lowers the weight for women’s evaluation of women.
Also, while I am sure that you did not consciously add it just for LW audience, if you were writing for a more general audience it does seem reasonable to assume—given that you are generally a good writer—that you would not include this sort of ‘example’ of application of the findings of Galton.
Replied in accordance with your username to prevent this from becoming an Endless Back-and-Forth Internet Argument Thread.
Quote from the article in question:
Does that really sound like someone who is doing a biased, partial update?
The PUA’s opinion on women was, nonetheless, not discounted for the typical mind fallacy. (Maybe the idea is that typical mind fallacy doesn’t work across genders or something, which would be rather interesting hypothesis, but, alas, unsupported)
Write higher quality, or make 2 sections, 1 good, 1 random. Write for general audience, i.e. no awful LW jargon and LW terminology misuse (‘rational’ actually means something, and so does ‘bayesian’). Cross post here. Come on, you said before, in calibrate your self assessments , that you have relatively low opinion on yourself.
it’s Eliezer’s former blog, hurr, durr, it’s people who didn’t cringe too hard on stuff like http://lesswrong.com/lw/qa/the_dilemma_science_or_bayes/ . He got those readers how? He split off from Hansen. I do have high opinion of you overall. Much higher than I have of EY.
Downvoted.
I hope I would downvote any comment containing the judgement-words “nonsense”, “sociopathic” and “trash” (referring to a subset of the LW readership) regardless of the position being advocated. The book Non-violent Communication advises making observations and expressing feelings, but avoiding rendering judgments. A “judgement” can be defined as a phrase or statement that can be expected to diminish the status or moral standing of a person or group.
Parenthetically, it has been proposed that one of the ways online forums unravel over time is that a few people who like making strong judgments show up and get into long conversations with each other, which tends to discourage participants for whom the strong judgments distract from their reasons for participating.
The judgements are very often instrumentally useful. Also, I do happen to see this subset of the users on internet every bit as negatively as I said, and so do many other people who usually don’t tell anything about it, and in so much as I do not think that seeing it more positively would be instrumentally useful, it’d not be quite honest to just see it this way and never say.
edit: also, a backgrounder. I am a game developer. We see various misogynistic crap every damn day (if looking into any online communication system). Also, as on the PUA, they see people (women) as objects, seek sexual promiscuity and shallow relationships, are deliberately manipulative, etc, etc. scoring more than enough points on a sociopathy traits list for a diagnosis (really only not scoring the positive points like charisma). What they think about women being taken as likely true is clearly a very poor example of evidence for a post about typical mind fallacy.