Most coarse grainings of this post are very stupid points, and you should expect that much of your point is lost in transmission. I think you should be a lot more careful that if you’re going to write something, the oversimplifications of it are not easily misinterpreted, so that it’s harder for various forms of adversary or merely-stupid reader to distort what you mean. I’m posting this despite anticipating pushback of the form “talking to people who misinterpret is a waste of time and should not be done”, and I think that’s wrong.
You… seem triggered in a way that doesn’t seem very helpful. Please comment very differently, or not on this post, or I’ll ban you from my posts.
I don’t want to make my writing adversarially robust to adversarial readers, that way lies the death of the joy of writing, as well as the path to boring writing. I am not that worried about people distorting what I mean, and if they do, I am pretty good at showing up and clarifying what I mean.
I agree that if a reader ends up skimming my post, I would like them not to end up with wrong beliefs, so that part is a virtue I aspire to.
(Edit: I originally said a dumber thing here, sorry about that)
Hmm, noted. I didn’t intend as harsh a tone as I reread it in now. Apologies for that. Fwiw, my other comments are also not meant in a harsh tone, and I hope they don’t read as much; I’m just trying to be correct here.
I do think there’s something that you’re missing about the effects of your posts based on the recent pattern of them, and that some increased adversarial robustness would reduce the severity of politically impactful misinterpretations. But it seems I’m not the best person to communicate this to you given my emotional dynamics, so again, apologies.
I’ve only posted two posts recently before this one, only one of which was controversial, which feels a bit ambitious to try to draw a pattern from. The most recent one did have some “politically impactful misrepresentations”, but I knew that that one would be controversial/tricky going in, and it overall still looks like it’s been well-received.
We will see whether you are correct in predicting a pattern, but my guess is there won’t be much of one.
Most coarse grainings of this post are very stupid points, and you should expect that much of your point is lost in transmission. I think you should be a lot more careful that if you’re going to write something, the oversimplifications of it are not easily misinterpreted, so that it’s harder for various forms of adversary or merely-stupid reader to distort what you mean. I’m posting this despite anticipating pushback of the form “talking to people who misinterpret is a waste of time and should not be done”, and I think that’s wrong.
You… seem triggered in a way that doesn’t seem very helpful. Please comment very differently, or not on this post, or I’ll ban you from my posts.
I don’t want to make my writing adversarially robust to adversarial readers, that way lies the death of the joy of writing, as well as the path to boring writing. I am not that worried about people distorting what I mean, and if they do, I am pretty good at showing up and clarifying what I mean.
I agree that if a reader ends up skimming my post, I would like them not to end up with wrong beliefs, so that part is a virtue I aspire to.
(Edit: I originally said a dumber thing here, sorry about that)
Hmm, noted. I didn’t intend as harsh a tone as I reread it in now. Apologies for that. Fwiw, my other comments are also not meant in a harsh tone, and I hope they don’t read as much; I’m just trying to be correct here.
I do think there’s something that you’re missing about the effects of your posts based on the recent pattern of them, and that some increased adversarial robustness would reduce the severity of politically impactful misinterpretations. But it seems I’m not the best person to communicate this to you given my emotional dynamics, so again, apologies.
I’ve only posted two posts recently before this one, only one of which was controversial, which feels a bit ambitious to try to draw a pattern from. The most recent one did have some “politically impactful misrepresentations”, but I knew that that one would be controversial/tricky going in, and it overall still looks like it’s been well-received.
We will see whether you are correct in predicting a pattern, but my guess is there won’t be much of one.