The reason I was asking for debugged brains was I already experienced similar negative reception to my posts here. I was hoping to find at least a few guys here that are REALLY free of fallacies, so they would take my request just for what it is, not for what they interpret or assume it is.

So to me this notion of finding folks "free of fallacies" sounds a bit strange since a fallacy is not something a person has and instead it's a way of describing an action as failing to satisfy the requirements of some purpose. "Fallacy" is most often used in this sense surrounding failures of (modal) logic, that is reasoning that fails to satisfy the rules of modal logic, so someone's reasoning may be said to be "free of fallacies" but not their person.

But - Isn't this kind of judgement a negative authority fallacy?

I think this gets into other territory, which is that fallacies exist mostly within the confines of modal logic only, yet modal logic is insufficient to completely explain reality as we find it, and in fact one of the core ideas of LW is that traditional rationality, with modal logic and failure to adhere to it as traditional rationality's spearhead, is inadequate because it often ignores useful evidence. Hence LW-style rationality takes a more nuanced stance in that fallacies are often only fallacies of logic and may actually be expressions of correct probability updates. That is, although some fallacy would disqualify you from saying something is "wrong" or "right" because it would invalidate the logic, it may instead be an expression of a valid probability update as a result of new evidence. Or not. Fallacies are somewhat correlated with correct probabilistic reasoning but not perfectly so (although probabilistic reasoning has its own set of fallacies not recognized within the fallacies of modal logic).

Sorry for the lack of links on this; it's stuff that's covered in the Sequences, but where exactly I'm not sure. I'll gladly strong upvote a reply to this comment linking to relevant material on these points.

Firstly, let me say that I think the idea of bringing rationalism to the masses is a great idea. I think the best we have so far is HPMoR so that should be the standard to try to improve upon.

Secondly, it is a very difficult task, as you are aware. That means that my prior for any individual succeeding at this would be very low, even if I've seen lots of evidence showing that they have the kind of skill set that would be required. If I hadn't read HPMoR I would have put a low expectation on Eliezer managing it - he himself says he would have only put a 10% chance of the kind of success that it has achieved.

If I have yet to witness that individual's skills then my prior is tiny and I need alot of evidence to suggest that they are capable. I think this is what you're seeing when you perceive a judgment on negative authority - I'm not saying you can't do it, only that I want more evidence before I believe that you can.

***

With your last post I think you were doing the right thing - putting your ideas out there and seeing what happens. Then if you've got it right people will start believing in your project more. I think where you went wrong on your last post was how you updated on the feedback you received. 2 hypotheses:

1. You are right and the community is full of people who don't realise

2. There are some issues which you were wrong about or stylistic choices which were unhelpful

I think the evidence is better for option 2 and that you would do better to modify what you've done based on the feedback.

If you are still convinced of option 1 then it's up to you to persuade the community why it is wrong. For ChristianKl's comment you could write the page of the proposed site where you give the evidence he requests. Reading between the lines I suspect that he disagrees with what you've said and that is why he wants you to provide the evidence, rather than purely that this would be the norm for LW. For my or Elo's comments you could persuade us that it really is as bad as you say.

***

In the future, my advice to you would be:

Start small - what individual bias do you think you could explain best? How would you explain just that 1 small thing as simply and engagingly as possible?

Use the site questions feature - if you want examples from the community just ask the question without any commentary on who is/isn't debugged etc.