I marvel at the apparent certitude with which you introspect. Maybe doubt is supposed to be implicit in all such statements, but I’d throw some extra weaseling in sometimes to make it clearer. In any event, your analogy is horrible: “friends” means private, different reputation issues, etc.
Edit: I should add, my point has nothing to do with “abrasive” social norm violations, as I understand that term. I consider that typical LessWrongian self-congratulation.
I assume some combination of using the word “cult” repeatedly, and the tonal offensiveness—and the writing style is lazy and hard to read (point form). The content is also more offensive the drethelin’s similar point above.
For my part, I’d like to restate my point and see if the votes shift.
I feel drethelin’s summary of Gwern’s post is pretty fair. There’s not much of interest in it. I think people are also underestimating how immoral Gwern’s behavior is (meaning: how counterproductive if adopted as a rule). It is also injurious in this specific case.
I also think it is pretty obvious that Gwern could expect this post to be upvoted. The injury is not to a LessWrongian, and it confirms “beliefs” held by LessWrongians. Human experimentation is often fun! Gwern may not see himself as explicitly having posted for that reason, but I do think he paid very little heed to outside parties, both as they might perceive this reflecting on LessWrong and as they might be directly harmed (even in odd ways, such as taking this seriously). It is this lack of awareness of the outside world that I called cult-like. I do not believe folks here are seriously letting this hurt their opinion of Gwern, and they should. I would take considerable pains to avoid people who behave in this way.
Cult-like behavior. Post has essentially no info (trivial on the specific case, redundant with known when—improperly—generalized) about the topic ostensibly about.
Rich in info on Gwern. Gwern values blah1 over blah2. He knows, or should know, LessWrong will approve of this (on balance, exhibiting personal commitment to investigation versus violation of norms against, etc). Outside LessWrong will not approve of this. Indeed, the cost Gwern pays personally (outside LessWrong) only shows greater personal commitment (to LessWrong), so contributes more to upvoting. But really just character estimation. Post itself is virtually valueless outside that. The attempt to justify this as an important case (previously discussed by cult leader) is dopey (and, if true, broad evidence of dopeyness). And, of course, costs paid by LessWrong more than Gwern. This is the behavior folks will (correctly) think of as LessWrongian. You (general) mostly don’t think about that (cultish). Too late to downvote post now.
Please do me the favor of accepting my apologies for tone, even if you don’t care. So, my original response was intended as a compatibility test. If I were a LessWrongian (I’m giving digs for fun), I would call it a literacy test or an intelligence test. So, if you think that −11 (as once it was) is surprising or not really sensible, we’re possibly compatible (even though I think the score is fair; personal biases). Otherwise, less likely (is the intent). I was also considering forbidding people from downvoting me. Apologies: just amusing myself. I’ll stop now.