post by [deleted] · · score: 0 (0 votes) · ? · GW · 0 comments

This is a link post for

0 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by John_Maxwell (John_Maxwell_IV) · 2009-04-12T18:13:23.352Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I'm going to upvote this even though it isn't terribly well articulated because I think it presents some semi-valid criticism and I think it will be healthy to force everyone to address it.

mormon1, have you seen this thing Eliezer wrote on Löb's Theorem? I think Eliezer is mostly trying to evangelize with this blog, but he's smart enough to know that just telling people how awesome his institute is will not be sufficient. Hence he's writing a series on "building rationalist communities", members of which he anticipates will be more willing to donate/work for his institute. See the comment by Anonymous here and Eliezer's response to it.

comment by rosyatrandom · 2009-04-12T19:02:58.333Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Is it irrational to have less regard for someone's argument simply because it lacks grammatical coherence and is overly antagonistic? Discuss!

comment by jimrandomh · 2009-04-12T19:21:15.623Z · score: 1 (3 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

No, it's perfectly rational, because having poor grammar is bayesian evidence that they're stupid. There are other explanations, such as speaking a different first language, but they are less likely. I recall one instance in which I assumed that someone who had poor grammar over the internet was speaking a second language, but later found out that he was literally brain damaged. mormon1 could be speaking English as his second language, but it is much more likely that he's just an idiot, in which case reading his posts is a waste of time and thinking about them is a waste of reason.

comment by Eliezer Yudkowsky (Eliezer_Yudkowsky) · 2009-04-12T18:17:27.754Z · score: 0 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Deleted because this user got all his karma by creating draft posts under the old system.