The second speaker … well, the second speaker probably did say exactly what they meant, connotation and implication and all. But if I imagine a better version of the second speaker, one who is trying to express the steelman of their point and not the strawman, it would go something like:
“Okay, so, I understand that you’re probably just trying to help, and that you genuinely want to hear people’s stories so that you can get to work on making things better. But like. You get how this sounds, right? You get how, if I’m someone who’s been systematically and cleverly abused by [organization], that asking me to email the higher-ups of [organization] directly is not a realistic solution. At best, this comment is tone-deaf; at worst, it’s what someone would do if they were trying to look good while participating in a cover-up.”
The key here being to build a meaning moat between “this is compatible with you being a bad actor” and “you are a bad actor.” The actual user in question likely believed that the first comment was sufficient evidence to conclude that the first speaker is a bad actor. I, in their shoes, would not be so confident, and so would want to distinguish my pushback from an accusation.
I’m not sure I buy this. Basically, your main point here is not that the presentation was flawed, but rather that it was a mistake to behave as tho the first speaker is a bad actor, rather than pointing out what test they failed and how they could have passed it instead.
Steelmanning for beliefs makes sense, but steelmanning for cooperativeness / morality seems much dodgier?
I don’t think I’m advocating steelmanning for cooperativeness and morality; that was a clumsy attempt to gesture in the direction of what I was thinking.
EDIT: Have made an edit to the OP to repair this
Or, to put it another way, I’m not saying “starting from the second speaker’s actual beliefs, one ought to steelman.”
Rather, I simply do not hold the second speaker’s actual beliefs; I was only able to engage with their point at all by starting with my different set of predictions/anticipations, and then presenting their point from that frame.
Like, even if one believes the first speaker to be well-intentioned, one can nevertheless sympathize with, and offer up a cooperative version of, the second speaker’s objection.
I don’t think that if you don’t believe the first speaker to be well-intentioned, you should pretend like they are. But even in that case, there are better forward moves than “Bullshit,” especially on LW.
(For instance, you could go the route of “if [cared], would [do X, Y, Z]. Since ¬Z, can make a marginal update against [cared].”)
I don’t think that if you don’t believe the first speaker to be well-intentioned, you should pretend like they are. But even in that case, there are better forward moves than “Bullshit,” especially on LW.
(For instance, you could go the route of “if [cared], would [do X, Y, Z]. Since ¬Z, can make a marginal update against [cared].”)
Somehow this reminds me of a recent interaction between ESRogs and Zack_M_Davis, where I saw ESRogs as pushing against slurs in general, which I further inferred to be part of pushing against hostility in general. But if the goal actually is hostility, a slur is the way to go about it (with the two comments generated, in part, by the ambiguity of ‘inappropriate’).
Somehow the framing of “updated against [cared]” seems to be playing into this? Like, one thing you might be tracking is whether [cared] is high or low, and another thing you might be tracking is whether [enemy] is high or low (noting that [enemy] is distinct from [¬cared]!). In cases where there are many moves associated with cooperativity and fewer associated with being adversarial, it can be much easier to talk about [enemy] than [cared].
I ended up jumping in to bridge the inferential gap in that exact exchange. =P
I think it’s fine to discover/decide that your [enemy] rating should go up, and I still don’t think that means “abandon the principles.” (EDIT: to be clear, I don’t think you were advocating for that.) It might mean abandon some of the disarmaments that are only valid for other peace-treaty signatories, but I don’t think there are enmities on LW in which it’s a good idea to go full Dark Arts, and I think it would be good if the mass of users downvoted even Eliezer if he were doing so in the heat of the moment.
I’m not sure I buy this. Basically, your main point here is not that the presentation was flawed, but rather that it was a mistake to behave as tho the first speaker is a bad actor, rather than pointing out what test they failed and how they could have passed it instead.
Steelmanning for beliefs makes sense, but steelmanning for cooperativeness / morality seems much dodgier?
I don’t think I’m advocating steelmanning for cooperativeness and morality; that was a clumsy attempt to gesture in the direction of what I was thinking.
EDIT: Have made an edit to the OP to repair this
Or, to put it another way, I’m not saying “starting from the second speaker’s actual beliefs, one ought to steelman.”
Rather, I simply do not hold the second speaker’s actual beliefs; I was only able to engage with their point at all by starting with my different set of predictions/anticipations, and then presenting their point from that frame.
Like, even if one believes the first speaker to be well-intentioned, one can nevertheless sympathize with, and offer up a cooperative version of, the second speaker’s objection.
I don’t think that if you don’t believe the first speaker to be well-intentioned, you should pretend like they are. But even in that case, there are better forward moves than “Bullshit,” especially on LW.
(For instance, you could go the route of “if [cared], would [do X, Y, Z]. Since ¬Z, can make a marginal update against [cared].”)
Somehow this reminds me of a recent interaction between ESRogs and Zack_M_Davis, where I saw ESRogs as pushing against slurs in general, which I further inferred to be part of pushing against hostility in general. But if the goal actually is hostility, a slur is the way to go about it (with the two comments generated, in part, by the ambiguity of ‘inappropriate’).
Somehow the framing of “updated against [cared]” seems to be playing into this? Like, one thing you might be tracking is whether [cared] is high or low, and another thing you might be tracking is whether [enemy] is high or low (noting that [enemy] is distinct from [¬cared]!). In cases where there are many moves associated with cooperativity and fewer associated with being adversarial, it can be much easier to talk about [enemy] than [cared].
I ended up jumping in to bridge the inferential gap in that exact exchange. =P
I think it’s fine to discover/decide that your [enemy] rating should go up, and I still don’t think that means “abandon the principles.” (EDIT: to be clear, I don’t think you were advocating for that.) It might mean abandon some of the disarmaments that are only valid for other peace-treaty signatories, but I don’t think there are enmities on LW in which it’s a good idea to go full Dark Arts, and I think it would be good if the mass of users downvoted even Eliezer if he were doing so in the heat of the moment.
what you refer to as Dark Arts here? do you consider slurs Dark Art? the word Bulshit?