Simply Googling it would not have signaled any disappointment radical_negative_one may have had that you did not include a citation (preferably with a relevant link) as is normal when making a quote like that.
/me bats the social signal into JGWeissman’s court
Omitting the citation, which wasn’t really needed, sends the message that I don’t wish to stand on Wittgenstein’s authority but think the sentiment stands on its own.
If it doesn’t stand on its own, you shouldn’t quote it at all—the purpose of the citation is to allow interested parties to investigate the original source, not to help you convince.
Voted up, but I would say the purpose is to do both, to help convince and help further investigation, and more, such as to give credit to the source. Citations benifet the reader, the quoter, and the source.
I definitely agree that willingness to forgo your own benifet as the quoter does not justify ignoring the benifets to the others involved.
If you can’t see the difference between Wittgenstein making an argument about what our intuitions about meaning and precision say and hard technical scientific arguments—like your ‘Argument screens’ link—nor how knowing the quote is by Wittgenstein could distort one’s own introspection & thinking about the former argument, while it would not do so about the latter, then I will just have to accept my downvotes in silence because further dialogue is useless.
I voted up RobinZ’s comment for the link to Beware Trivial Inconveniences.
Since his polite attempt is not getting through to you, I will be more explicit:
You do not have sufficient status to get away with violating group norms regarding the citations of quotes. Rather than signaling that you are confident in your status, and have greater wisdom about the value of citations, it actually signals that you are less valuable to the group, in part as a result of your lack of loyalty, and that your behavior reflects poorly on the group. On net, this lowers your status.
I’d prefer to resort to (linguistic) pragmatics. RNO made a straightforward and polite request. Then gwern granted the request but planted a subtle barb at the same time (roughly “You should have Googled it”). That was rude. We can only speculate on the reasons for being rude (e.g. past exchanges with RNO). Instead of acknowledging the rudeness and apologizing gracefully gwern is defending the initial behaviour. Both the rudeness and the defensiveness run counter to this site’s norms. My prediction is further downvotes if this continues (and apparently gwern agrees!).
“Status”, in this case, seems once again to be a non-load-bearing term.
“Status”, in this case, seems once again to be a non-load-bearing term.
I don’t think this is fair as a criticism of my analysis, as the details I gave indicate how I cash out “status” at a lower level of abstraction.The explanatory power of the term in this case is that people have an expectation that with enough status, they can get away with violating group norms (and demonstrating this augments status), and Gwern seems to (falsely) think he(?) has sufficient status to get away with violating this norm. (Really, this norm is important to this group and I don’t believe anyone has enough status to get away with violating it here.)
I realize we have had some confused posts about status lately, including the one your linked comment responds to, but that doesn’t make it wrong to use the word to refer to a summary of a person’s value and power within a group, and other group members’ perceptions of these attributes.
Also note, I did not write that comment to explain to others what is going on, but to get Gwern to conform to what I believe is an important group norm.
Mind you, I have no particular interest in this minor dispute about sourcing quotes. By and large I prefer to see quotes with a source.
I am (perhaps unwisely) acting on my frustration at one more use of the term “status” that has increased my confusion, while my requests for clarification have gone without response, and thus opportunistically linking an unrelated thread to those requests.
The explanatory power of the term in this case is that people have an expectation
I do not have privileged access to gwern’s expectations, I can only infer them in very roundabout ways from gwern’s behaviour. I would regard with extreme caution an “explanation” that referred to someone’s mental state, without at least a report by that person of their mental state. The short-hand I use for this mistake is “mind-reading”.
Maybe if gwern had come out and said “I have 1337(+) karma, punk. I can quote without sourcing if I want to”, I’d be more sympathetic to your use of the term “status”. But gwern didn’t, and in fact gave a reason for not sourcing, so he would be justified in saying something like “Argument screens off status” in response to your claims.
You could just as well have told gwern, “This community has a norm of sourcing quotes. I note your argument that this norm would detract from the value of the quotes by appearing to appeal to authority. I reject the argument, and additionally I think you’re being a jerk.”
(+) Not numerically correct, but close enough that I couldn’t resist the pun.
I did reject the argument, or at least agreed with RobinZ in rejecting the argument. I made the point about “This community has a norm of sourcing quotes.” I won’t just bluntly say “I think you’re being a jerk.” as “jerk” is an inflammatory uninformative term.
It seems to me like you are objecting to my practical use of a theory because you don’t understand it, and because other people have written low quality posts about it (which I criticized). Maybe you should go read a high quality post about it.
I suspect my analysis differs from yours—for one, I read in RNO’s request a similar barb: roughly, “You should have included a source when you posted a quote.” JGW initial comment noted the presence of this—RNO’s—barb, whereupon gwern acknowledged the existence of a disagreement by arguing explicitly for his position. In fact, the first post in his argument is at positive karma—I suspect because it is a valid point, despite being in opposition to the norm.
I would not be so hasty to dismiss JGW’s analysis.
The status part seems to come from an assumption that Eliezer or someone else could have gotten away with it. That assumption may be wrong. I think your interpretation is better.
Could you include a source for this quote, please?
Googling it would’ve told you that it’s from Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations.
Simply Googling it would not have signaled any disappointment radical_negative_one may have had that you did not include a citation (preferably with a relevant link) as is normal when making a quote like that.
/me bats the social signal into JGWeissman’s court
Omitting the citation, which wasn’t really needed, sends the message that I don’t wish to stand on Wittgenstein’s authority but think the sentiment stands on its own.
Then use your own words. Wittgenstein’s are barely readable.
My words are barely readable? Did you mean Wittgenstein’s words?
Pardon me I meant Wittgenstein.
If it doesn’t stand on its own, you shouldn’t quote it at all—the purpose of the citation is to allow interested parties to investigate the original source, not to help you convince.
Voted up, but I would say the purpose is to do both, to help convince and help further investigation, and more, such as to give credit to the source. Citations benifet the reader, the quoter, and the source.
I definitely agree that willingness to forgo your own benifet as the quoter does not justify ignoring the benifets to the others involved.
You’re right, of course.
If he couldn’t even ‘investigate’ one Google search, then he’s not going to get a whole lot out of knowing it’s Wittgenstein’s PI.
Arguments from authority are inductively valid, much like ad hominems...
Argument screens off authority. And a Google search is inconvenient.
Please source your quotes. Thank you.
If you can’t see the difference between Wittgenstein making an argument about what our intuitions about meaning and precision say and hard technical scientific arguments—like your ‘Argument screens’ link—nor how knowing the quote is by Wittgenstein could distort one’s own introspection & thinking about the former argument, while it would not do so about the latter, then I will just have to accept my downvotes in silence because further dialogue is useless.
I voted up RobinZ’s comment for the link to Beware Trivial Inconveniences.
Since his polite attempt is not getting through to you, I will be more explicit:
You do not have sufficient status to get away with violating group norms regarding the citations of quotes. Rather than signaling that you are confident in your status, and have greater wisdom about the value of citations, it actually signals that you are less valuable to the group, in part as a result of your lack of loyalty, and that your behavior reflects poorly on the group. On net, this lowers your status.
Knock it off.
I am growing ever more suspicious of this “status” term.
I’d prefer to resort to (linguistic) pragmatics. RNO made a straightforward and polite request. Then gwern granted the request but planted a subtle barb at the same time (roughly “You should have Googled it”). That was rude. We can only speculate on the reasons for being rude (e.g. past exchanges with RNO). Instead of acknowledging the rudeness and apologizing gracefully gwern is defending the initial behaviour. Both the rudeness and the defensiveness run counter to this site’s norms. My prediction is further downvotes if this continues (and apparently gwern agrees!).
“Status”, in this case, seems once again to be a non-load-bearing term.
I don’t think this is fair as a criticism of my analysis, as the details I gave indicate how I cash out “status” at a lower level of abstraction.The explanatory power of the term in this case is that people have an expectation that with enough status, they can get away with violating group norms (and demonstrating this augments status), and Gwern seems to (falsely) think he(?) has sufficient status to get away with violating this norm. (Really, this norm is important to this group and I don’t believe anyone has enough status to get away with violating it here.)
I realize we have had some confused posts about status lately, including the one your linked comment responds to, but that doesn’t make it wrong to use the word to refer to a summary of a person’s value and power within a group, and other group members’ perceptions of these attributes.
Also note, I did not write that comment to explain to others what is going on, but to get Gwern to conform to what I believe is an important group norm.
Mind you, I have no particular interest in this minor dispute about sourcing quotes. By and large I prefer to see quotes with a source.
I am (perhaps unwisely) acting on my frustration at one more use of the term “status” that has increased my confusion, while my requests for clarification have gone without response, and thus opportunistically linking an unrelated thread to those requests.
I do not have privileged access to gwern’s expectations, I can only infer them in very roundabout ways from gwern’s behaviour. I would regard with extreme caution an “explanation” that referred to someone’s mental state, without at least a report by that person of their mental state. The short-hand I use for this mistake is “mind-reading”.
Maybe if gwern had come out and said “I have 1337(+) karma, punk. I can quote without sourcing if I want to”, I’d be more sympathetic to your use of the term “status”. But gwern didn’t, and in fact gave a reason for not sourcing, so he would be justified in saying something like “Argument screens off status” in response to your claims.
You could just as well have told gwern, “This community has a norm of sourcing quotes. I note your argument that this norm would detract from the value of the quotes by appearing to appeal to authority. I reject the argument, and additionally I think you’re being a jerk.”
(+) Not numerically correct, but close enough that I couldn’t resist the pun.
I think gwern just might be more subtle than a paperclip maximizer.
I did reject the argument, or at least agreed with RobinZ in rejecting the argument. I made the point about “This community has a norm of sourcing quotes.” I won’t just bluntly say “I think you’re being a jerk.” as “jerk” is an inflammatory uninformative term.
It seems to me like you are objecting to my practical use of a theory because you don’t understand it, and because other people have written low quality posts about it (which I criticized). Maybe you should go read a high quality post about it.
I suspect my analysis differs from yours—for one, I read in RNO’s request a similar barb: roughly, “You should have included a source when you posted a quote.” JGW initial comment noted the presence of this—RNO’s—barb, whereupon gwern acknowledged the existence of a disagreement by arguing explicitly for his position. In fact, the first post in his argument is at positive karma—I suspect because it is a valid point, despite being in opposition to the norm.
I would not be so hasty to dismiss JGW’s analysis.
The status part seems to come from an assumption that Eliezer or someone else could have gotten away with it. That assumption may be wrong. I think your interpretation is better.
There are rational reasons to hesitate more before harshing the behaviour of people you trust more—you are more likely to be mistaken.