>Avoiding effort with respect to discussing ideas gets you bias, which is the opposite of the point of discussion.

Avoiding effort with respect to discussing ideas that I can broadly (and efficiently) classify as not likely to be worthwhile gives me time to think about and discuss other ideas that are more likely to be worth my time. Does it "get me bias" if I ignore the rantings of a crazy person I see on the street?

>So you're basically openly saying that you are willing to comment here, without considering the perspectives being put forth that you're replying to, which at the very least seems against the spirit of HN, and more realistically is against the process of rational thought in general.

I didn't reply to the Ayn Rand comment. I replied to the comment about blind rejection, the perspective behind which comment I did consider.

"That's not a reply worthy of HN because it is mean and doesn't give any consideration to the topic under discussion" would have been a reasonable reply to thrownaway2424. "Blind rejection is intellectually lazy" was not.

It's bias if you decipher a logical point, and continue to believe something that is counter to it, without providing countering logic.

Deciphering a logical point may or may not happen depending on the context. It's more likely to happen in an HN thread than by listening to a crazy person.

Efficiency would necessitate not blind rejection, but a decision to simply not judge. Rejection is a judgment. Judgment without logic is a bias.

The "blind rejection" comment you originally replied to, was pretty clearly referring to judgment without logic. This is something different from intellectual efficiency, which would simply be deciding to not form a judgment at the time, if one reasonably decided that there was not enough information available at that moment to do so, and the importance doing something else outweighed the importance of judging the idea in that moment.

So, while I agree with a concept of efficiency or temporary non-judgment, I disagree that it's the same thing as auto-rejection, which is judgment.

By countering a counter to a comment advocating auto-rejection of ideas, you seemed to be advocating auto-rejection of ideas, as opposed to advocating non-judgment.

I guess auto-rejection is also technically an "efficient" approach, but it is definitely intellectually lazy. Non-judgment is not intellectually lazy, if actually used for the sake of efficiency and not avoidance.

Now I see that our disagreement is over definitions. To me, "blind rejection" of a quote is "I don't care what this quote contains because of who said it. I have stopped listening." Maybe that's what thrownaway2424 and jrajav meant, respectively, or maybe not. By the principle of charity, that's what jrajav should have considered thrownaway2424's comment to mean, but of course it is also possible that jrajav didn't consider that interpretation.

In any case, by "blind rejection" I meant "automatic disregard", not "automatic disagreement". I certainly agree that automatically disagreeing with a person, regardless of what they say, is a losing strategy except in the very specific case that you've encountered and conclusively identified the fabled Omniscient Lying Labyrinth Guard.