I am not experiencing suffering or claiming to experience suffering [...] I find this a psychologically invasive and offensive suggestion on your part
Sorry, I should have been clearer: I was trying to point to the game-theoretic structure where, as you suggest by the “madman with hostages” metaphor, an author considering publishing an allegedly suffering-causing idea could be construed as engaging in extortion (threatening to cause suffering by publishing and demanding concessions in exchange for not publishing), but that at the same time, someone appealing to suffering as a rationale to not publish could be construed as engaging in extortion (threatening that suffering would be a result of publishing and demanding concessions, like extra research and careful wording, in exchange for publishing). I think this is an interesting game-theoretic consideration that’s relevant to the topic of discussion; it’s not necessarily about you.
In cases where convincing is >>> costly to complying to the request it’s good form to comply
How do we know you’re not bluffing? (Sorry, I know that’s a provocative-sounding question, but I think it’s actually a question that you need to answer in order to invoke costly signaling theory, as I explain below.)
Your costly signaling theory seems to be that by writing passionately, you can distinguish yourself as seeing a real danger that you can’t afford to demonstrate, rather than just trying to silence an idea you don’t like despite a lack of real danger.
When someone uses the phrase “costly signal”, I think it’s germane and not an isolated demand for rigor to point out that in the standard academic meaning of the term, it’s a requirement that honest actors have an easier time paying the cost than dishonest actors.
That is: I’m not saying you were bluffing; I’m saying that, logically, if you’re going to claim that costly signals make your claim trustworthy (which is how I interpreted your remarks about “a method of rendering a more costly signal”; my apologies if I misread that), you should have some sort of story for why a dishonest actor couldn’t send the same signal. I think this is a substantive technical point; the possibility of being stuck in a pooling equilibrium with other agents who could send the same signals as you for different reasons is definitely frustrating, but not talking about it doesn’t make the situation go away.
I agree that you’re free to ignore my comments. It’s a busy, busy world that may not last much longer; it makes sense that people to have better things to do with their lives than respond to every blog comment making a technical point about game theory. In general, I hope for my comments to provide elucidation to third parties reading the thread, not just the person I’m replying to, so when an author has a policy of ignoring me, that doesn’t necessarily make responding to their claims on a public forum a waste of my time.
Sorry, I should have been clearer: I was trying to point to the game-theoretic structure where, as you suggest by the “madman with hostages” metaphor, an author considering publishing an allegedly suffering-causing idea could be construed as engaging in extortion (threatening to cause suffering by publishing and demanding concessions in exchange for not publishing), but that at the same time, someone appealing to suffering as a rationale to not publish could be construed as engaging in extortion (threatening that suffering would be a result of publishing and demanding concessions, like extra research and careful wording, in exchange for publishing). I think this is an interesting game-theoretic consideration that’s relevant to the topic of discussion; it’s not necessarily about you.
How do we know you’re not bluffing? (Sorry, I know that’s a provocative-sounding question, but I think it’s actually a question that you need to answer in order to invoke costly signaling theory, as I explain below.)
Your costly signaling theory seems to be that by writing passionately, you can distinguish yourself as seeing a real danger that you can’t afford to demonstrate, rather than just trying to silence an idea you don’t like despite a lack of real danger.
But costly signaling only works when false messages are more expensive to send, and that doesn’t seem to be the case here. Someone who did want to silence an idea they didn’t like despite a lack of real danger could just as easily write as passionately as you.
I’m not trying to silence anything. I have really just requested ~1 hour of effort (and named it as that previously).
You’re hyperbolizing my gestures and making selective calls for rigor.
Meta: I hope to follow a policy of mostly ignoring you in the future, in this thread and elsewhere. I suggest allocating your energy elsewhere.
When someone uses the phrase “costly signal”, I think it’s germane and not an isolated demand for rigor to point out that in the standard academic meaning of the term, it’s a requirement that honest actors have an easier time paying the cost than dishonest actors.
That is: I’m not saying you were bluffing; I’m saying that, logically, if you’re going to claim that costly signals make your claim trustworthy (which is how I interpreted your remarks about “a method of rendering a more costly signal”; my apologies if I misread that), you should have some sort of story for why a dishonest actor couldn’t send the same signal. I think this is a substantive technical point; the possibility of being stuck in a pooling equilibrium with other agents who could send the same signals as you for different reasons is definitely frustrating, but not talking about it doesn’t make the situation go away.
I agree that you’re free to ignore my comments. It’s a busy, busy world that may not last much longer; it makes sense that people to have better things to do with their lives than respond to every blog comment making a technical point about game theory. In general, I hope for my comments to provide elucidation to third parties reading the thread, not just the person I’m replying to, so when an author has a policy of ignoring me, that doesn’t necessarily make responding to their claims on a public forum a waste of my time.