First let me say that I do not think that attacks are by their very nature impermissible, and if you do, how dare you put “witty” in scare quotes? That’s just flat-out unkind.
Anyway, it’s a little hard for me to defend my comments of two years ago against attack, because I no longer remember what prompted me to make them. I will do my best to reconstruct my mental state leading up to the comment I made.
I don’t think I was necessarily on PhilGoetz’s side when I read his comment. I think I agreed, and still agree, with Technologos. But when I read the Wise Master’s response to it, it didn’t sit right with me. It read like an attempt to fight back against attack with anything that came to hand, rather than an attempt to seek truth. Surely, I must have felt, if the Wise Master were thinking clearly, he would see that unfamiliarity with the works of others is not an excuse, but in fact the entire problem. I feel that I wanted to communicate this insight. I chose the form that I did probably because it was the first one that came to mind. I hang out on some pretty rough and tumble internet forums, described by one disgruntled former poster as “geek bevis[sic] and buthead[sic] humour[sic]”. Sharp, witty-without-the-scare-quotes one-liners are built into my muscle memory at this point, and I view a well-executed burn as having aesthetic value in and of itself. I dunno, there is something to be said for short, elegant responses to provoke thought, rather than long plodding walls of text.
Anyway, that’s my reasoning, perspective, and logic. I hope you found this enlightening.
“witty” was describing my remark, as in the remarks I hold back on may not actually be witty, I was not trying to reference your remark though in retrospect it does seem easy to infer that so I apologize for communicating sloppily.
Attacks that do not forward the conversation are not useful. If the attacker does not expose the logic and data behind their attack then the person being attacked has no logic or data to pick a part and respond to and has no reason to believe that the attacker is earnest in seeking the truth.
“witty” was describing my remark, as in the remarks I hold back on may not actually be witty, I was not trying to reference your remark though in retrospect it does seem easy to infer that so I apologize for communicating sloppily.
Your attack against Nominull was, in fact, stronger and less ambiguous than Nominull’s.
Attacks that do not forward the conversation are not useful. If the attacker does not expose the logic and data
The logic behind the point was actually quite obvious, which is not to say I would have presented it in this context. As Perplexed points out, sometimes there are benefits to taking the effort that you do know what other people have written. (Incidentally, I upvoted both Eliezer Phil and left Nominull alone).
Nominull’s comment, discourteous or not, furthered the actual conversation while yours did not (and nor did mine). So that isn’t the deciding factor here of why your kind of attack is different from Nominull’s kind. I think the difference in perception is that you are responding to provocation, which many people perceive as a whole different category—but that can depend which side you empathise with.
Your attack against Nominull was, in fact, stronger and less ambiguous than Nominull’s.
You use the terms “Stronger”, “less ambiguous” when I did not make the claim of weaker or more ambiguous. Are you implying that I am untruthful in your first quote of me, if so it is a misinterpretation on your part.
The logic behind the point was actually quite obvious, which is not to say I would have presented it in this context.
The logic on why Nominull values EY linking and quoting philosophical works is not obvious to me. Nor is it obvious to me what Nominull’s mental model on why EY has not been linking an quoting philosophical works(from 2009 comment). With out making that mental model clear and pointing out supporting evidence I do not see who it is useful.
As Perplexed points out, sometimes there are benefits to taking the effort that you do know what other people have written.
I do not see any one denying that there are benefits to this in this conversation. I can not tell if you have a deeper point.
I think the difference in perception is that you are responding to provocation
That does not fit to how I view my response. It seems to me that the conversation could have taken a much different and more productive route right after EY’s comment and Nominull’s comment discouraged it. I gave the alternative of engaging EY on “why he thinks it is so important to link to want he has written rather then what other people have written” that I thought would lead to a more productive conversation. I want to encrage productive conversation if I am going to be a community member of lesswrong.
First let me say that I do not think that attacks are by their very nature impermissible, and if you do, how dare you put “witty” in scare quotes? That’s just flat-out unkind.
Anyway, it’s a little hard for me to defend my comments of two years ago against attack, because I no longer remember what prompted me to make them. I will do my best to reconstruct my mental state leading up to the comment I made.
I don’t think I was necessarily on PhilGoetz’s side when I read his comment. I think I agreed, and still agree, with Technologos. But when I read the Wise Master’s response to it, it didn’t sit right with me. It read like an attempt to fight back against attack with anything that came to hand, rather than an attempt to seek truth. Surely, I must have felt, if the Wise Master were thinking clearly, he would see that unfamiliarity with the works of others is not an excuse, but in fact the entire problem. I feel that I wanted to communicate this insight. I chose the form that I did probably because it was the first one that came to mind. I hang out on some pretty rough and tumble internet forums, described by one disgruntled former poster as “geek bevis[sic] and buthead[sic] humour[sic]”. Sharp, witty-without-the-scare-quotes one-liners are built into my muscle memory at this point, and I view a well-executed burn as having aesthetic value in and of itself. I dunno, there is something to be said for short, elegant responses to provoke thought, rather than long plodding walls of text.
Anyway, that’s my reasoning, perspective, and logic. I hope you found this enlightening.
“witty” was describing my remark, as in the remarks I hold back on may not actually be witty, I was not trying to reference your remark though in retrospect it does seem easy to infer that so I apologize for communicating sloppily.
Attacks that do not forward the conversation are not useful. If the attacker does not expose the logic and data behind their attack then the person being attacked has no logic or data to pick a part and respond to and has no reason to believe that the attacker is earnest in seeking the truth.
Your attack against Nominull was, in fact, stronger and less ambiguous than Nominull’s.
The logic behind the point was actually quite obvious, which is not to say I would have presented it in this context. As Perplexed points out, sometimes there are benefits to taking the effort that you do know what other people have written. (Incidentally, I upvoted both Eliezer Phil and left Nominull alone).
Nominull’s comment, discourteous or not, furthered the actual conversation while yours did not (and nor did mine). So that isn’t the deciding factor here of why your kind of attack is different from Nominull’s kind. I think the difference in perception is that you are responding to provocation, which many people perceive as a whole different category—but that can depend which side you empathise with.
You use the terms “Stronger”, “less ambiguous” when I did not make the claim of weaker or more ambiguous. Are you implying that I am untruthful in your first quote of me, if so it is a misinterpretation on your part.
The logic on why Nominull values EY linking and quoting philosophical works is not obvious to me. Nor is it obvious to me what Nominull’s mental model on why EY has not been linking an quoting philosophical works(from 2009 comment). With out making that mental model clear and pointing out supporting evidence I do not see who it is useful.
I do not see any one denying that there are benefits to this in this conversation. I can not tell if you have a deeper point.
That does not fit to how I view my response. It seems to me that the conversation could have taken a much different and more productive route right after EY’s comment and Nominull’s comment discouraged it. I gave the alternative of engaging EY on “why he thinks it is so important to link to want he has written rather then what other people have written” that I thought would lead to a more productive conversation. I want to encrage productive conversation if I am going to be a community member of lesswrong.