I’m writing to look for people interested in participating in this contest:
Ban Charles He Contest
Sort of inspired by this post, I’m disappointed by a lot of my forum writing because my content is minor and mentally easy and not that meaningful. (While more forum writing probably isn’t the ideal solution) there is more difficult writing I can do:
Basically, I have “answers” to a number of arguments or viewpoints that are either “used against EA” or just occupy a lot of time on EA online media. I think this is bad.
Also, I think I have an answer to the “general St Petersburg paradox”, let’s throw that in too
I think my four answers are pretty obvious.
I’m worried this sounds like a blogger and I want to put some skin in the game.
If I’m “very wrong”, I’ll get banned, as determined in the following way:
I’m looking for people willing to critique my answers, especially in a ruthless, crisp way. For example, if my answer is flat out logically wrong, highly irrelevant, or has been dealt with thoroughly so that about 50% of experienced EAs are answering with good knowledge of the content of my answer.
Note that “discursive” sort of replies, with a “additional consideration” sort of flavor, should not count. Replies should undermine the substance of my answer and generally prop up the targeted argument as a valid project or objection.
This is subjective, so I’ll implement this judgment of banning in this way:
I’ll post my “answer”. After I post my answers to each of the three topics, anyone can critique with a “reply”.
If any single “reply” gets an agreement score of 10 or more, I’ll be banned for that number of days.
Note that strong votes are fine, so just 2 people can trigger this condition.
This banning will function additively with replies with distinct arguments, e.g. I can get banned for 60 days if there are 6 replies across my four “answers”.
I’m writing because I’m looking for people who are interested in replying to my answers, making my task harder.
I will wait until I get a few replies to this comment, which will be taken as a sign of interest and real chance for my ban, then write the above at some point.
How about changing this into some sort of a “Change My View” system, or commit to some reward? Not sure why someone would want to put in time to prove you wrong, or to vote correspondingly, in order to ban you.
Also, you might very well be wrong in some important way, but still add a meaningful and novel viewpoint to an important problem.
A lot of your comments have been very well received and possibly have meaningfully contributed to doing more good, but I see that you haven’t made any posts. Maybe you should try more of a “long-form” writing first? Possibly, send it to some people for review first, and edit accordingly, and then publish it. It’s really hard to do justice to any topic, and the four arguments you allude to involve deep questions that have been on the minds of many people.
I’m writing to look for people interested in participating in this contest:
Ban Charles He Contest
Sort of inspired by this post, I’m disappointed by a lot of my forum writing because my content is minor and mentally easy and not that meaningful. (While more forum writing probably isn’t the ideal solution) there is more difficult writing I can do:
Basically, I have “answers” to a number of arguments or viewpoints that are either “used against EA” or just occupy a lot of time on EA online media. I think this is bad.
These arguments or viewpoints are:
Newcomb’s paradox
The repugnant conclusion
This variation of the St Petersburg’s paradox,
Also, I think I have an answer to the “general St Petersburg paradox”, let’s throw that in too
I think my four answers are pretty obvious.
I’m worried this sounds like a blogger and I want to put some skin in the game.
If I’m “very wrong”, I’ll get banned, as determined in the following way:
I’m looking for people willing to critique my answers, especially in a ruthless, crisp way. For example, if my answer is flat out logically wrong, highly irrelevant, or has been dealt with thoroughly so that about 50% of experienced EAs are answering with good knowledge of the content of my answer.
Note that “discursive” sort of replies, with a “additional consideration” sort of flavor, should not count. Replies should undermine the substance of my answer and generally prop up the targeted argument as a valid project or objection.
This is subjective, so I’ll implement this judgment of banning in this way:
I’ll post my “answer”. After I post my answers to each of the three topics, anyone can critique with a “reply”.
If any single “reply” gets an agreement score of 10 or more, I’ll be banned for that number of days.
Note that strong votes are fine, so just 2 people can trigger this condition.
This banning will function additively with replies with distinct arguments, e.g. I can get banned for 60 days if there are 6 replies across my four “answers”.
I’m writing because I’m looking for people who are interested in replying to my answers, making my task harder.
I will wait until I get a few replies to this comment, which will be taken as a sign of interest and real chance for my ban, then write the above at some point.
How about changing this into some sort of a “Change My View” system, or commit to some reward? Not sure why someone would want to put in time to prove you wrong, or to vote correspondingly, in order to ban you.
Also, you might very well be wrong in some important way, but still add a meaningful and novel viewpoint to an important problem.
A lot of your comments have been very well received and possibly have meaningfully contributed to doing more good, but I see that you haven’t made any posts. Maybe you should try more of a “long-form” writing first? Possibly, send it to some people for review first, and edit accordingly, and then publish it. It’s really hard to do justice to any topic, and the four arguments you allude to involve deep questions that have been on the minds of many people.