User Profile


Recent Posts

Curated Posts
starCurated - Recent, high quality posts selected by the LessWrong moderation team.
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Frontpage Posts
Posts meeting our frontpage guidelines: • interesting, insightful, useful • aim to explain, not to persuade • avoid meta discussion • relevant to people whether or not they are involved with the LessWrong community.
(includes curated content and frontpage posts)
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
All Posts
personIncludes personal and meta blogposts (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

Call for volunteers: Publishing the Sequences

1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Dotting i's and Crossing t's - a Journey to Publishing Elegance

Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Cryonics on Castle [Spoilers]

Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Preference For (Many) Future Worlds

Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Wiki: Standard Reference or Original Research?

Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Rationality Quotes: January 2011

Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

The 9 Circles of Scientific Hell

Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Explaining information theoretic vs thermodynamic entropy?

Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

A Rational Education

Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Rationality Quotes: February 2010

Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Recent Comments

> We have the instinct to consume sugar because it is the most concentrated form of energy that humans can process, not because it is naturally paired with vitamins.

Sugar is desirable as the most easily accessible form of energy. Being *concentrated* is more useful for long term storage in a mobil...(read more)

> UPI Reporter Dan Olmsted went looking for the autistic Amish. In a community where he should have found 50 profound autistics, he found 3.

He went looking for autistics in a community mostly known for rejecting Science and Engineering? It 'should' be expected that the rate of autism is the same a...(read more)

> I think this is about the only scenario on LW that someone can be justifiably downvoted for that statement.

I up-voted it for dissenting against [sloppy thinking]( disguised as being deep or clever. Twisting the word 'god' to include other th...(read more)

Hubris isn't something that destroys you, it's something you are punished for. By the gods!

Or by physics. Not all consequences for overconfidence are social.

> You were willing to engage with me after I said something "inexcusably obnoxious" and sarcastic, but you draw the line at a well reasoned collection of counterarguments? Pull the other one.

For those curious, I stopped engaging after the [second]( more)

Can't imagine who'd have guessed your exact intention just based on your initial response, though.

You are probably right and I am responsible for managing the predictable response to my words. Thankyou for the feedback.

I was sarcastic, but you were sarcastic first.

I was not sarcastic. I was entirely straightforward and sincere.

I am afraid your conversation practices make me unable to engage with you further (unless, obviously, I perceive others to be negatively impacted by your words.)

> Wow, thank God you've settled this question for us with your supreme grasp of rationality. I'm completely convinced by the power of your reputation to ignore all the arguments common_law made, you've been very helpful!

Apart from the inexcusably obnoxious presentation the point hidden behind your...(read more)

You should question your unstated but fundamental premise: one should avoid arguments with "hostile arguers."

I just questioned that premise. It seems sound.

> Trying to use reasoned discussion tactics against people who've made up their minds already isn't going to get you anywhere, and if you're unlucky, it might actually be interpreted as backtalk, especially if the people you're arguing against have higher social status than you do--like, for instanc...(read more)