4 ms·
As near as I can tell, the summary of your lesswrong link is something like: "Some people disagree with me. But they're just playing games about social status
by gloob 16y ago
As near as I can tell, the summary of your lesswrong link is something like:
"Some people disagree with me. But they're just playing games about social status!"
Which, I mean, is cool and all, but it's perhaps possible that maybe some people are just more cautious than others, for example. There have to be better arguments than fabricating someone's motives out of thin air and attacking those.
- jodrellblank 16y agoA summary is "some people disagree with things, but can't give any specifics of what things they think are mistaken and the evidence which makes them think that. I [the author] have to assume that instead of looking at the evidence and believing the most probable thing they can find, they are instead disagreeing for other reasons which have nothing to do with truth or accuracy or evidence based decision making". but it's perhaps possible that maybe some people are just more cautious than others, for example Cautious is saying "I wont invest in xyz singularity technology until I'm convinced it works" or "I'm not planning my retirement fund based on living to 150 until I see people routinely living to 150 starting where I am now" or "I've seen 80 claims of new technology fall through, so this has to have extra strong evidence to convince me it's not in the same class". Saying "I'm too pessimistic for this happy happy future world" isn't cautious, it's something else. (Also: perhaps, possible, maybe, just, for example? I can't say why but you are strongly hammering into your post that you think someone is an idiot you have to speak down to. Me, or the article author, or both. That's the kind of social signalling you dismiss yet you are doing it (and so am I. Everyone does).