I think the twitter user teortaxestex can often be as annoying as an openly sneering internet troll but is a good source of information. There’s some people like this in the prediction market space too.
I’m guessing it’s net positive to tune people out unless either they clearly-at-a-glance have some insight, or, you’ve heard from some other channel that that they say interesting/useful things.
(I’m not that confident the calculus shakes out this way but generally I think people pay way too much attention to internet trolls. They don’t just need to provide nonzero value, they have to provide more value than whatever else you were doing, on average)
Well yes of course only pay attention if they have something to say worth listening to. But imo this is pretty rare so it’s worth putting up with some rudeness to get.
Wrt your “don’t understand” react, my point being information sources that are contentful, high-density and have high KL-divergence wrt your existing sources of information are rare. And of course one reason they might be high-divergence is that they are in a distinct social cluster with distinct norms, possible even tribally opposed to your usual information sources. IMO most rationalists do not read widely enough in this sense.
I think the twitter user teortaxestex can often be as annoying as an openly sneering internet troll but is a good source of information. There’s some people like this in the prediction market space too.
I’m guessing it’s net positive to tune people out unless either they clearly-at-a-glance have some insight, or, you’ve heard from some other channel that that they say interesting/useful things.
(I’m not that confident the calculus shakes out this way but generally I think people pay way too much attention to internet trolls. They don’t just need to provide nonzero value, they have to provide more value than whatever else you were doing, on average)
Well yes of course only pay attention if they have something to say worth listening to. But imo this is pretty rare so it’s worth putting up with some rudeness to get.
Wrt your “don’t understand” react, my point being information sources that are contentful, high-density and have high KL-divergence wrt your existing sources of information are rare. And of course one reason they might be high-divergence is that they are in a distinct social cluster with distinct norms, possible even tribally opposed to your usual information sources. IMO most rationalists do not read widely enough in this sense.
Okay, I think I get what you mean. Still disagree with your comment but I already listed why in the comment before, so not getting into it more.