Yeah, but come on, losing credibility in the eyes of the masses is like the easiest thing in the world. Find a taboo, then break it. Losing credibility in the eyes of the wise, though, is impossible. Some people will know I'm a good rationalist no matter how many shenanigans I pull—I'd have to start breaking laws or something to make them think I'd finally gone full schizo. I guess I could just claim to be God, but it's so hard not to be meta, the relevant people would see through my act quickly. The only choice is to avoid them, and move into the forest for good.

Losing credibility in the eyes of the wise, though, is impossible.

Not so. Be wrong on stuff that matters when you clearly had enough evidence available to reach the correct decision (and they previously would have expected you to be correct). If that doesn't cause you to lose credibility in their eyes then I reject either your definition of "credibility" or "wise".

I guess I could just claim to be God

It would be sufficient to claim that there is a god (and it is this particular God) despite the information you had available. See above.

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?