But there does seem to be a number of people here who understand what is going on, but are refusing to offer their explanations, in spite of the fact that a lot of people are confused here.

Maybe they take the basilisk threat seriously?

Just don't be fooled by intelligence too much. Just because those people can disgorge some math that doesn't lent their extraordinary claims much credence. Most of the credence they assign is based on mutual reassurance anyway. Just like a bunch of ufologists updating on each others evidence of alien abductions.

Just like a bunch of ufologists updating on each others evidence of alien abductions.

Given normal assumptions, additional claims of abductions should provide additional evidence. I don't think you've quite pinned downed the error with your example.

This post is for sacrificing my credibility!

by Will_Newsome 1 min read2nd Jun 2012347 comments

-30


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?

Discuss.

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?