This is mainly what I want to know. From the comments on this post, it looks like W_N claims to have (read: geniunely has, geniunely thinks he has, or trolls as though he has) come across something he can't tell people about - a basilisk, some conspiracy-theory-type information, something.

Would you have written the same comment if the header of this site wouldn't read "a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality" but instead "computational theology"?

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

No, but that's a fallacious comparison. The header does in fact read "a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality," and I'm here because I want to read that kind of site.

Also, I've read some of Will's "computational theology" blog. His posts there seem to consist of actual reasoning and logic and such, whereas over here his posts on the same general topic tend toward "I've got a big secret I'm not going to tell you, so there, nyaah." (My apologies if this is an unfair representation, but that's the impression I've formed.)

This post is for sacrificing my credibility!

by Will_Newsome 1 min read2nd Jun 2012347 comments


Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. Don't worry, there won't be future posts like this, so you don't have to delete my LessWrong account, and anyway I could make another, and another.

But since you've dared to read this far:

Credibility. Should you maximize it, or minimize it? Have I made an error?


Don't be shallow, don't just consider the obvious points. Consider that I've thought about this for many, many hours, and that you don't have any privileged information. Whence our disagreement, if one exists?