Who said there was no attempt to explain…? I think you might be reading things into my comment that aren’t there…
(That said, I don’t actually see where in the post my questions are, in fact, answered. Do you?)
including the part with the metaphor about why it would be hard to explain with words, together with alluding to the existence of many other people who also had a hard time explaining it with words
I’m sure you can see how that might be, shall we say, rather unsatisfying.
Man, alright, so I’m going to be honest here. I feel like you’re being a huge asshole in this conversation, and I’m feeling a strong desire to defend Val from what feels to me like an attack on your part. I expect admitting this will give you plenty of ammunition to continue attacking if that’s what you want to do, but I really wish you wouldn’t.
I don’t want to win this conversation. I think Val is explaining something important and if someone gets something out of his explanation that would make me very happy. It’s looking unlikely that you’re going to be one of those people, and that’s okay, but it also feels to me like you’re implicitly accusing Val of having violated norms—that’s the attack I want to defend against—and if that’s how you’re feeling I wish you’d be more explicit about it.
It does seem like a somewhat common pattern that your comments get interpreted as hostile. I think this is both a reason to extend you more charitability, since I don’t actually think those worries have ever been clearly demonstrated to be true, but is also a sign of something more general going wrong that I don’t really know how to deal with.
(Happy to continue this thread via private chat or in meta. I am hesitant to have even more meta on this post.)
Said, you do not get to decide what people read into your words. What you’ve communicated to others is what they get from your communication, no more and no less. There’s a tight analogy to teaching: you do not get to decide what you teach to your students. What you’ve taught is what they’ve learned, no more and no less.
I believe that you’re trying to get something out of Val’s explanations, but there are other things you’re doing in the course of that trying and they’re really rubbing me the wrong way. That is at least as much a fact about me as about you, but I am a real human having a real experience of being pissed at you, and you don’t get to define that experience away just because you don’t see anything in your comments worth getting pissed about.
Note that at this point the thread doesn’t seem super valuable to continue to me, and that I might lock it down in case it continues in a way that I expect to go badly. Discussion via PM or in Meta is welcome.
Good faith strikes me as a weird descriptor. Do appreciate the sincerity and articulation. (I do think it’s important that Qiaochu doesn’t undeservedly get the label of “good faith”, in particular in a conversation in which he is suggesting someone is lacking exactly that attribute)
edit: replaced “accusing” with “suggesting” for less combatative framing
Who said there was no attempt to explain…? I think you might be reading things into my comment that aren’t there…
(That said, I don’t actually see where in the post my questions are, in fact, answered. Do you?)
I’m sure you can see how that might be, shall we say, rather unsatisfying.
Man, alright, so I’m going to be honest here. I feel like you’re being a huge asshole in this conversation, and I’m feeling a strong desire to defend Val from what feels to me like an attack on your part. I expect admitting this will give you plenty of ammunition to continue attacking if that’s what you want to do, but I really wish you wouldn’t.
I don’t want to win this conversation. I think Val is explaining something important and if someone gets something out of his explanation that would make me very happy. It’s looking unlikely that you’re going to be one of those people, and that’s okay, but it also feels to me like you’re implicitly accusing Val of having violated norms—that’s the attack I want to defend against—and if that’s how you’re feeling I wish you’d be more explicit about it.
Now you are definitely reading things into my comments that aren’t there.
I would certainly like to get something out of Valentine’s explanations. It seems to me that I have been trying to do exactly that. That’s all.
It does seem like a somewhat common pattern that your comments get interpreted as hostile. I think this is both a reason to extend you more charitability, since I don’t actually think those worries have ever been clearly demonstrated to be true, but is also a sign of something more general going wrong that I don’t really know how to deal with.
(Happy to continue this thread via private chat or in meta. I am hesitant to have even more meta on this post.)
Said, you do not get to decide what people read into your words. What you’ve communicated to others is what they get from your communication, no more and no less. There’s a tight analogy to teaching: you do not get to decide what you teach to your students. What you’ve taught is what they’ve learned, no more and no less.
I believe that you’re trying to get something out of Val’s explanations, but there are other things you’re doing in the course of that trying and they’re really rubbing me the wrong way. That is at least as much a fact about me as about you, but I am a real human having a real experience of being pissed at you, and you don’t get to define that experience away just because you don’t see anything in your comments worth getting pissed about.
[Moderation Note]
Note that at this point the thread doesn’t seem super valuable to continue to me, and that I might lock it down in case it continues in a way that I expect to go badly. Discussion via PM or in Meta is welcome.
I love Qiaochu’s comment for its sincerity, good faith, and articulation.
Good faith strikes me as a weird descriptor. Do appreciate the sincerity and articulation. (I do think it’s important that Qiaochu doesn’t undeservedly get the label of “good faith”, in particular in a conversation in which he is suggesting someone is lacking exactly that attribute)
edit: replaced “accusing” with “suggesting” for less combatative framing
I also think good faith is a weird descriptor of what I said.