For what it's worth (nothing, right?), I disagree. I'm the best I know of when it comes to crazy-sounding-but-right, but the position could also go to Nick Tarleton, maybe Michael Vassar.

Disagreement with what I was trying to convey would actually imply that you are the "best at not-crazy-sounding-but-wrong despite satisficed crazy-sounding-but-but-right". Michael Vassar cannot claim that role either (I wouldn't expect him to try). He speculates a lot and that inevitably leads to being wrong a portion of the time.

(And yes, implicitly you should rate yourself highly there too.)

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?