One theme of many lesswrong articles is to identify possible human biases. This article seems to be consistent with that theme. The article simply posits a possible bias.
Do you think that those who first hypothesized about and described confirmation bias wanted to throw dirt or find a label for their opponents? Do you think that identifying human biases is not a worthy activity?
I’m not really sure why you seem to be so enraged about this article. Your belief that signaling doesn’t show itself in much of human behavior is fair enough and a valid criticism. I just don’t think that ad hominem was necessary. At least provide some evidence, some quote as to why you think the author wants nothing but to throw dirt.
Do you think that those who first hypothesized about and described confirmation bias wanted to throw dirt or find a label for their opponents? Do you think that identifying human biases is not a worthy activity?
I’m not really sure why you seem to be so enraged about this article. Your belief that signaling doesn’t show itself in much of human behavior is fair enough and a valid criticism. I just don’t think that ad hominem was necessary. At least provide some evidence, some quote as to why you think the author wants nothing but to throw dirt.