kodos96

Karma: 817

kodos96 5 Jan 2013 1:45 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Randy_M’s comment on: Politics Discussion Thread January 2013
Re-reading the grand-grand-grand-grand-parent post, yes, I now see that you’re correct that that was what he was trying to get at—although he certainly wasn’t being particularly clear.

But regardless, downvoting someone for conceding a point to someone they’re engaged in debate with is pretty lame.

kodos96 4 Jan 2013 6:15 UTC
0 points
in reply to: anansi133’s comment on: Welcome to Less Wrong! (July 2012)

If anything, I’d be tempted to say that autism is a more pronounced degree of asperger’s

That seems to me to be basically equivalent to saying that aspergers is a lesser form of autism. Again, sorry I can’t find the links at the moment, but I recall reading several articles suggesting that the two might actually not be related at all, neurologically.

The whole idea of neurodiversity is kind of exciting, actually. If there can be more than one way to appropriately interact with society, everyone gets richer.

I agree. Unfortunately, modern culture and institutions (like the public education system for one notable example) don’t seem to be set up based on this premise.

kodos96 4 Jan 2013 4:56 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Briony’s comment on: Welcome to Less Wrong! (July 2012)

I have a form of autism called Asperger Syndrome

This is not at all unusual here at LessWrong… I can’t seem to find a link, but I seem to recall that a fairly large portion of LessWrong-ers (at least relative to the general population) have Aspergers (or at least are somewhat Asperger-ish), myself included.

I’m not entirely sure though that I agree with the statement that Aspergers is “a form of autism”… I realize that that has been the general consensus for a while now, but I’ve read some articles (again, can’t find a link at the moment, sorry) suggesting that Aspergers is not actually related to Autism at all… personally, my feeling on the matter is that “Aspergers” isn’t an actual “disease” per se, but rather just a cluster of personality traits that happen to be considered socially unacceptable by modern mainstream culture, and have therefore been arbitrarily designated as a “disease”.

In any case, welcome to LessWrong—I look forward to your contributions in the future!

kodos96 4 Jan 2013 2:37 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Emile’s comment on: Politics Discussion Thread January 2013
By “the first one” do you mean “AND THEREFORE, REPUBLICANS ARE RIGHT!”? If so, please cite examples.

probably in one episode of The Konkvistador And Multiheaded Show

I’ve been abstaining from LessWrong for awhile now, so I’ve missed a lot. Can you link me to some examples of what you mean by “The Konkvistador And Multiheaded Show”? It sounds highly entertaining.

kodos96 3 Jan 2013 19:06 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Alsadius’s comment on: Politics Discussion Thread January 2013
Yes, I suppose so. Good point.

Edit: Seriously? Downvotes? For conceding that my political opponent made a good point? Seriously?

kodos96 3 Jan 2013 3:34 UTC
0 points
in reply to: FiftyTwo’s comment on: Politics Discussion Thread January 2013
Although I disagree with FiftyTwo’s conclusions, I am nevertheless disappointed that it has received net downvotes.… it’s a perfectly valid question after all, and we’re not supposed to be doing downvote==disagree, right?

kodos96 3 Jan 2013 3:25 UTC
3 points
in reply to: Xachariah’s comment on: Politics Discussion Thread January 2013

For fairness’ and balance’s sake, I’ll say that the pro-choice is probably less about integrity of body and more about wanting to fuck without consequence.

Funny, from my point of view this evidence suggests that pro-lifers are actually more concerned with controlling women’s sex lives, than with saving unborn babies.

kodos96 3 Jan 2013 3:22 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Alsadius’s comment on: Politics Discussion Thread January 2013
Upvoted, beacause I agree in principle, but I don’t actually see any examples of this in this thread.

kodos96 3 Jan 2013 3:17 UTC
5 points
in reply to: Emile’s comment on: Politics Discussion Thread January 2013

If you put a big banner over a discussion saying “HEY THIS IS A POLITICAL DISCUSSION”, and you have people adding “AND THEREFORE, REPUBLICANS ARE RIGHT!” at the end of their posts, or reply with “OH, THAT’S A SOCIALIST ARGUMENT YOU’RE MAKING THERE”

I don’t see any examples of people actually doing that, though.

kodos96 3 Jan 2013 3:10 UTC
4 points
in reply to: Richard_Kennaway’s comment on: Politics Discussion Thread January 2013

If they laugh, that proves I’m right; if they boo, that proves I’m right.

This seems like heresy to me from a Bayesian perspective.

kodos96 3 Jan 2013 1:38 UTC
0 points
on: Applied Picoeconomics

calling upon various fictional deities for whom I have great respect.

Just curious… can you clarify this statement? It sounds a lot like Chaos Magick to me, and that surprises me, coming from you (not necessarily in a bad way).

kodos96 2 Jan 2013 18:20 UTC
2 points
in reply to: OrphanWilde’s comment on: Politics Discussion Thread January 2013

The entertaining thing from my perspective is that the discussions here have been polite, informative, and honest

Yes, I’ve noticed that too, which was part of why I was confused that people objected to it.

kodos96 2 Jan 2013 18:20 UTC
7 points
in reply to: Vladimir_Nesov’s comment on: Politics Discussion Thread January 2013
I was under the impression that this was an “official” thing, but it sounds like I was wrong.

kodos96 2 Jan 2013 8:10 UTC
3 points
on: Politics Discussion Thread January 2013
Just curious… who is downvoting this post, and why? Politics is the mind killer, I know… but this regularly-occuring thread is supposed to be an accepted exception, isn’t it?

kodos96 1 Jan 2013 0:32 UTC
2 points
in reply to: John_Maxwell’s comment on: Stupid Questions Open Thread

There is no clear bright line determining who is or is not a fundamentalist Christian. Right now, there pretty much is a clear bright line determining who is or is not human.

Is there? What about unborn babies? What about IVF fetuses? People in comas? Cryo-presevered bodies? Sufficiently-detailed brain scans?

kodos96 31 Dec 2012 3:56 UTC
0 points
in reply to: gensym’s comment on: In which I fantasize about drugs

delta-wave-inducing binaural beats

Do you have any recommendations for a currently commercially available (or freely available) source of binaural beats? I experimented with a binaural beat “mind machine” years ago, and saw no significant results, but still find the idea fascinating.

kodos96 27 Dec 2012 8:31 UTC
0 points
in reply to: AlexMennen’s comment on: [Error communicating with LW2 server]

Eliezer found your comment, read it, decided he wanted to get rid of it

Circumstantial evidence suggests that it was not Eliezer himself who personally modded the thread. But I’m not sure.

This does not sound much more plausible than him noticing that your thread broke the rules, and censoring it for that reason, at about the same time your accused him of dishonesty in it.

Sure, that’s a possability. It seems to me much less likely than my proposed hypothesis, but only the mods can say for sure. Mods? Comment?

Given that evidence, it would be absolutely shocking if he did not censor your post once it was pointed out that you broke the advocating violence rule, whether or not you accused him of dishonesty.

Well, this post is still up, despite discussing violence.

kodos96 27 Dec 2012 8:24 UTC
0 points
in reply to: pragmatist’s comment on: [Error communicating with LW2 server]
Yes, but I can only see my side of them, not the comments they were responding to, and they don’t make any sense that way.

kodos96 27 Dec 2012 7:51 UTC
1 point
in reply to: pragmatist’s comment on: [Error communicating with LW2 server]

A better way to present the data would be to have a column for your actions, and then a second column giving the amount of time between that action and the deletion.

Agreed. That was my original intention, but I didn’t realize that deletion of the thread would eliminate the entire record of the sequence of events. I’m sure such a highly-granular log could be produced by the mods though. Mods? You reading this? (rhetorical question… we all know you are).

You obviously think it is much more likely that the mods will act immediately than that they will act with a one-day lag, but I don’t buy this, especially considering the fact that the one day during which the post wasn’t deleted was Christmas.

I was watching the “recent comments” while all this was ongoing, and I assure you that EY, and other prominent mods, were active on the site at the time. Also, not of demographics which typically celebrate christmas (not that there’s anything wrong with that).

kodos96 27 Dec 2012 7:39 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Emile’s comment on: [Error communicating with LW2 server]

Downvoted for bragging about trolling here—that’s not something I want to see encouraged.

I was quite concerned about this myself, which is why I very intentionally created a separate troll thread (or “experimental thread”) within which to segregate my trolling from the main discussion thread, in order to avoid lowering the signal-to-noise ratio in the forum where substantive matters were being discussed.

By the time I entered phase 3 of the experiment (explicit trolling), the post had already been downvoted sufficiently that it was no longer appearing on “recent comments”.

Trust me, I put a LOT of thought into this.