Most of the negative comments, and therefore I guess most of the downvotes, were about the title (which he has since changed) or the lack of citations (which he has since added). OTOH, I agree with maia that it needs a copy-editing.
It was more upvoted than your concomitant post yesterday. As of now this post has 50 upvotes, against 19 upvotes in yours.
The topic is highly controversial, therefore it has a lot more votes altogether, upwards or downwards.
To only let in Main topics that are uncontroversial is a highly radical move IMHO. It is also mildly authoritarian. I say this despite my profound happiness with your sniper policy back in the SL4 days in 2004-2005.
Editing before the comment below goes under:
And that is not in any way because I want to challenge Eliezer or something. For all I know, Eliezer has the highest probability of being among the three most counterfactually important people alive (Contenders being Hanson, Bostrom, Gates, Thiel, James Martin, Musk and Myrvold). I’ve once even gave a presentation with deliberate intent of being less good than someone else’s, just so that Eliezer would appreciate and interact with the other person (they still work together/aligned to this day) because I knew how important his attention was.
If you go to Mr Ifey story (Idealized Fiction of Eliezer Yudkowky) in this post,
you’ll see that besides physically threatening me or my dears with a blade, there is nearly nothing Eliezer could ever do that would make me not like him. People have trouble with his arrogance, which was by far what I most enjoyed back at SL4 in 2004.
I think your quality of proofreading, organization, and sources cited (even with the changes you made) is not high enough for this post to be in Main. It reads like a first draft, not a polished post.
I also don’t think specific advice about how to rub a man’s penis belongs on LessWrong.
I don’t know. There are less wrong and more wrong ways of doing it...
Humor aside, no, probably not, in and of itself. But I think the idea that sex is subject to rational consideration is itself valuable. So there is an implicit value there, outside what is actually written.
I upvoted the post for this reason. I’ve found myself searching for relationship-related stuff on LessWrong several times, and was never able to find much. (In particular, I’d really like to see some advice on maintaining relationships, and predicting which ones will succeed.)
Yes it is. It is better. It is also longer. It is about a more mathy topic. It is posted nearer to the present. It is less upvoted, it is less controversial, it is more approved. It is not by the same author. It is more similar to a Hofstadter book. It is less similar to the book “Primate Sexuality 1999”. Just because something is better, or more important, doesn’t make it not comparable in any dimension. The only reason for me to mention Yudkowsky’s post is because both his, and the other post (also very important on programmer career and donations) were posted less than 45 minutes after mine, making mine go down (by chance) a lot on the website scroll. Even then, my post had way more votes at that moment, and more upvotes, I just wanted to see if his true rejection was his alleged rejection, or if he would circumvent it by not saying anything (which he did), or saying that now there was this other reason for the same conclusion.
And that is not in any way because I want to challenge Eliezer or something. For all I know, Eliezer has the highest probability of being among the three most counterfactually important people alive (Contenders being Hanson, Bostrom, Gates, Thiel, James Martin, Musk and Myrvold). I’ve once even gave a presentation with deliberate intent of being less good than someone else’s, just so that Eliezer would appreciate and interact with the other person (they still work together/aligned to this day) because I knew how important his attention was.
If you go to Mr Ifey story (Idealized Fiction of Eliezer Yudkowky) in this post,
you’ll see that besides phisically threatening me or my dears with a blade, there is nearly nothing Eliezer could ever do that would make me not like him. People have trouble with his arrogance, which was by far what I most enjoyed back at SL4 in 2004.
I’ve always dealt with Lesswrong as an arena, a brainstorming place. I write here to be controversial, to cause discussion, to induce reflection. To train writing for really sharp and sometimes mean readers.
It’s not a matter of importance. The other two posts are, by far, more important than this one. Its just a matter of which criteria to use, and how explicit you want to be about it.
Moving to Discussion (not much upvoted).
Most of the negative comments, and therefore I guess most of the downvotes, were about the title (which he has since changed) or the lack of citations (which he has since added). OTOH, I agree with maia that it needs a copy-editing.
It was more upvoted than your concomitant post yesterday. As of now this post has 50 upvotes, against 19 upvotes in yours.
The topic is highly controversial, therefore it has a lot more votes altogether, upwards or downwards.
To only let in Main topics that are uncontroversial is a highly radical move IMHO. It is also mildly authoritarian. I say this despite my profound happiness with your sniper policy back in the SL4 days in 2004-2005.
Editing before the comment below goes under:
I think your quality of proofreading, organization, and sources cited (even with the changes you made) is not high enough for this post to be in Main. It reads like a first draft, not a polished post.
I also don’t think specific advice about how to rub a man’s penis belongs on LessWrong.
I don’t know. There are less wrong and more wrong ways of doing it...
Humor aside, no, probably not, in and of itself. But I think the idea that sex is subject to rational consideration is itself valuable. So there is an implicit value there, outside what is actually written.
I upvoted the post for this reason. I’ve found myself searching for relationship-related stuff on LessWrong several times, and was never able to find much. (In particular, I’d really like to see some advice on maintaining relationships, and predicting which ones will succeed.)
This may help you: http://www.amazon.com/Endocrinology-Social-Relationships-Peter-Ellison/dp/0674063996
The Pascal’s Muggle article is not even remotely comparable to your post.
Yes it is. It is better. It is also longer. It is about a more mathy topic. It is posted nearer to the present. It is less upvoted, it is less controversial, it is more approved. It is not by the same author. It is more similar to a Hofstadter book. It is less similar to the book “Primate Sexuality 1999”. Just because something is better, or more important, doesn’t make it not comparable in any dimension. The only reason for me to mention Yudkowsky’s post is because both his, and the other post (also very important on programmer career and donations) were posted less than 45 minutes after mine, making mine go down (by chance) a lot on the website scroll. Even then, my post had way more votes at that moment, and more upvotes, I just wanted to see if his true rejection was his alleged rejection, or if he would circumvent it by not saying anything (which he did), or saying that now there was this other reason for the same conclusion.
And that is not in any way because I want to challenge Eliezer or something. For all I know, Eliezer has the highest probability of being among the three most counterfactually important people alive (Contenders being Hanson, Bostrom, Gates, Thiel, James Martin, Musk and Myrvold). I’ve once even gave a presentation with deliberate intent of being less good than someone else’s, just so that Eliezer would appreciate and interact with the other person (they still work together/aligned to this day) because I knew how important his attention was.
If you go to Mr Ifey story (Idealized Fiction of Eliezer Yudkowky) in this post,
http://lesswrong.com/lw/g87/calibrating_against_undetectable_utilons_and_goal/
you’ll see that besides phisically threatening me or my dears with a blade, there is nearly nothing Eliezer could ever do that would make me not like him. People have trouble with his arrogance, which was by far what I most enjoyed back at SL4 in 2004.
I’ve always dealt with Lesswrong as an arena, a brainstorming place. I write here to be controversial, to cause discussion, to induce reflection. To train writing for really sharp and sometimes mean readers.
It’s not a matter of importance. The other two posts are, by far, more important than this one. Its just a matter of which criteria to use, and how explicit you want to be about it.
I’d rather have EY’s profile than your sense of social grace. What a despicable thing to do.