We should recognize the reflexive “no, it is you who are wrong and bad” message as an epistemic antipattern, and we should be vigilant against it.
I strongly object to this stance, for two reasons.
First (and less importantly): “no, it is you who are wrong and bad” is perfectly capable of being true. How, then, can it be an “epistemic antipattern”?
Now, I say this is the less important of my two objections because from a purely epistemic standpoint, the important part of the reply is just the “no” part. The counter-accusation may, of course, also be true—but if we get the defense right, we’re most of the way to successfully keeping our worldview straight.
But if we confine ourselves to the defense, then…
Secondly (and more importantly): by treating “no, it is you who are wrong and bad” as an antipattern, we remove a powerful weapon of rhetorical and conceptual self-defense from precisely the people most in need of it—and we thereby contribute to bad epistemic environments.
Why do I say this?
Suppose that you’re accused of something; and accused unjustly. You know that you are innocent of the charge; what’s more, you know that you actions were, not only unobjectionable, but praiseworthy, or even necessary.
How do you respond? If you merely say “No! I am innocent of the charge! I am in the right!”—well, it may be perfectly true. But rhetorically it will be perceived as weak, in all but the most coolly rational of social spaces (and no, Less Wrong most assuredly does not meet that bar).
What’s more, consider that if you have acted in a good and praiseworthy manner, or if you have done what is necessary, what you would respect someone else for doing… and if you have, then, been accused of wrongdoing, in response… then (unless the whole thing is a thoroughly innocent misunderstanding, which happens rarely!) the one who has accused you has himself transgressed—not only against you, but against the collective.
The way in which such wrongs are made right, is for the accused to be able to respond in such a way that does not give the accuser an asymmetric advantage. That is, if Alice can say “you have done wrong, Bob!”, and Bob can respond only with “no! I haven’t done wrong!” (and at best only clear himself of the charge), then this gives Alice the asymmetric advantage. But it is different if Bob can say: “No, I have done no wrong; indeed, I have acted properly, and would have been at fault, had I done otherwise; and you, Alice, have erred (at the least), by accusing me.”
Of course, the same logic may be applied to the counter-accusation itself—and should be.
Yeah, in retrospect I should have said more about the importance of evidence. “We should recognize the evidence-free “no, it is you who are wrong and bad” as an antipattern.”
And even then, I think some of what Aella is talking about isn’t so much a response to criticism as a general attitude that everyone else is wrong and bad.
I was more or less with you until this part:
I strongly object to this stance, for two reasons.
First (and less importantly): “no, it is you who are wrong and bad” is perfectly capable of being true. How, then, can it be an “epistemic antipattern”?
Now, I say this is the less important of my two objections because from a purely epistemic standpoint, the important part of the reply is just the “no” part. The counter-accusation may, of course, also be true—but if we get the defense right, we’re most of the way to successfully keeping our worldview straight.
But if we confine ourselves to the defense, then…
Secondly (and more importantly): by treating “no, it is you who are wrong and bad” as an antipattern, we remove a powerful weapon of rhetorical and conceptual self-defense from precisely the people most in need of it—and we thereby contribute to bad epistemic environments.
Why do I say this?
Suppose that you’re accused of something; and accused unjustly. You know that you are innocent of the charge; what’s more, you know that you actions were, not only unobjectionable, but praiseworthy, or even necessary.
How do you respond? If you merely say “No! I am innocent of the charge! I am in the right!”—well, it may be perfectly true. But rhetorically it will be perceived as weak, in all but the most coolly rational of social spaces (and no, Less Wrong most assuredly does not meet that bar).
What’s more, consider that if you have acted in a good and praiseworthy manner, or if you have done what is necessary, what you would respect someone else for doing… and if you have, then, been accused of wrongdoing, in response… then (unless the whole thing is a thoroughly innocent misunderstanding, which happens rarely!) the one who has accused you has himself transgressed—not only against you, but against the collective.
The way in which such wrongs are made right, is for the accused to be able to respond in such a way that does not give the accuser an asymmetric advantage. That is, if Alice can say “you have done wrong, Bob!”, and Bob can respond only with “no! I haven’t done wrong!” (and at best only clear himself of the charge), then this gives Alice the asymmetric advantage. But it is different if Bob can say: “No, I have done no wrong; indeed, I have acted properly, and would have been at fault, had I done otherwise; and you, Alice, have erred (at the least), by accusing me.”
Of course, the same logic may be applied to the counter-accusation itself—and should be.
Yeah, in retrospect I should have said more about the importance of evidence. “We should recognize the evidence-free “no, it is you who are wrong and bad” as an antipattern.”
And even then, I think some of what Aella is talking about isn’t so much a response to criticism as a general attitude that everyone else is wrong and bad.
I dunno.