Are you saying people should never casually make such claims about apples and tomatoes? I haven’t tried to parse your comments in detail, apologies if I'm misunderstanding. But they seem to be implying a huge amount of friction on conversation that does not seem practical to me. (i.e. only discuss things if you're going to take the time to clarify details of your model. The reasons we have clusters and words and shorthand is because that's a lot of effort that most of the time isn't the best use of time)

Yes, I think that's roughly where I'm pointing.

Whose time do you mean? The judges? Your own time? The participants' time?

I think I get what you mean.

Maybe this is somehow related to the "openness to experience" (and/or autism). If you are willing to interact with weird people, you can learn many interesting things most people will never hear about. But you are also more likely to get hurt in a weird way, which is probably the reason most people stay away from weird people.

And as a consequence, you develop some defenses, such as allowing interaction only to some specific degree, and no further. Instead of filtering for safe people, you filter for safe circumstances. Which protects you, but also prevents you from from possible gains, because in reality, some people are more trustworthy than others, and it correlates negatively with some types of weirdness.

Like, instead of "I would probably be okay inviting X and Y to my home, but I have a bad feeling about inviting Z to my home", you are likely to have a rule "meeting people in cafeteria is okay, inviting them home is taboo". Similarly, "explaining concepts to someone is okay, investing money together is not".

So on one hand you are willing to tell a complete stranger in cafeteria the story of your religious deconversion and your opinion on Boltzmann brains (which would be shocking for average people); but you will probably never spend a vacation together with people who are closest to you in intellect and values (which average people do all the time).

Hm, I see the widget in Chrome though

No, so I checked to see if it's still an issue before doing so, and it isn't.

Voting should work on Firefox and if it doesn’t that is surprising and bad. Do you have any kind of noscript plugins running by any chance?

(Note that there are some general bugs re: voting aggregation that are not Firefox specific that we are working on)

1) The audience. 2) The presentation.

I couldn’t say. I regularly use neither the Less Wrong website (I do my LW browsing/commenting/etc. via GreaterWrong) nor Firefox (which I use only for testing purposes).

Have you reported this bug to the Less Wrong development team?

Is this why lesswrong doesn't work on firefox? (Voting specifically.)