Hey, I was referred to this thread via
the Aella thread.
I don't have much to contribute here because it would just be a repetition of a video I've already made:
However, if you find this helpful or informative or cathartic in any way — great!
Kiwifarms (and Encyclopedia Dramatica) gets a mention in
Scott's latest post (
archive):
View attachment 4381360
Oh my god lol.
1. They kept their own lists, and are hyper-paranoid in spite of that. The Austin scene banned a local poet by mistake for a few months because they thought she was a journalist, I believe for the NYT in particular.
2. Aella has me on some kind of blacklist. They keep their own blacklists, they have no problem with this. The fuck out of here? lmao
3. "most people don't have a convenient list" ... no, many lesswrong rationalists definitely do, just not Scott.
4. "even if a good Bayesian would adjust for such a bias, most people aren't good Bayesians" well, then this invalidates his entire blog:
Starting premise: P(A|B) = [P(A)*P(B|A)]/P(B), all the rest is commentary.
→ P(A|B) = [P(A)*P(B|A)]/P(B) represents Bayes rule
→ Bayesians believe in Bayes rule to the point of "all the rest is commentary"
→ However, "most people are not good Bayesians"
→ Not only are "most people not good Bayesians", they are not-good-Bayesians enough to disregard basic Bayesian reasoning when a situation gets real; this includes lesswrong rationalists
→ Scott implicitly believes we should surrender to this
Conclusion: P(A|B) = [P(A)*P(B|A)]/P(B) is irrelevant when things get real, all the rest is commentary.