I regarded our exchange the exact same way. Unfortunately, that doesn’t give us any insight into the subject.
To your credit, you had a good point and I realized that there was an additional factor that supported your point that you may not know about, so I tossed it in:
Food: Now that you’ve said “a few hundred calories makes a difference”, I see that this could be a potential setback for them. That was a good point. I don’t know whether they eat a bit more or less, though I know that they can experience reactive hypoglycemia if they don’t space and balance their meals properly to avoid blood sugar crashes.
To my credit, you asserted that a person claiming an estimated IQ of 220 must be lying or from the future but completely failed to acknowledge my point when I said we have used IQ tests in recent decades that did give scores like those due to miscalibration, so people who can honesty claim an IQ score that high are not, by default, lying. You reacted as if I was assuming a perfectly accurate method was used and this guy’s true IQ was 220. However, I had stated that I was arguing that your assertion that the person must be “lying or from the future” was incorrect.
This is why I got irritated with you and wanted to write you off.
What we need to be asking here is not “Who irritates the most people during debates?”—people can be irritated by the difficulty of being made to grapple with good reasoning skills just as easily as the annoyance of tolerating poor reasoning skills. The question should not even be “Who gives up on their debates most frequently?” because if your opponent is just shooting logical fallacy silly string, it’s justified to end it—so you don’t always lose a precious learning opportunity when you cut it short. What I think we should be asking is “When we get frustrated in a debate, how can we tell where the problem is?”
You know, I think I’ve rested enough from our debate now that if you wanted to take me up on my open invitation to administer ass kickings to my ideas, I’d be up for another bout with you.
You know, I think I’ve rested enough from our debate now that if you wanted to take me up on my open invitation to administer ass kickings to my ideas, I’d be up for another bout with you.
Regardless of the merit of intellectual masochism it may be politically expedient for you to ease up on using this language to describe your interactions. If you already find it infuriating that shminux is able to quote you for the purpose of doing reputation damage then shame on you if he fools you twice. Be more careful with your words in order to not make yourself an easy target.
To put it another way, talking about how much you like ass kickings and inviting ‘bouts’ is not the optimal way for you to provoke the kind of quality intellectual challenge you desire.
Alright, I see that you probably have a good point Wedrifid. I would like your advice if you have some. Also, did you get the two emails I sent around 20 hours ago?
I regarded our exchange the exact same way. Unfortunately, that doesn’t give us any insight into the subject.
To your credit, you had a good point and I realized that there was an additional factor that supported your point that you may not know about, so I tossed it in:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/kk/why_are_individual_iq_differences_ok/77vs
To my credit, you asserted that a person claiming an estimated IQ of 220 must be lying or from the future but completely failed to acknowledge my point when I said we have used IQ tests in recent decades that did give scores like those due to miscalibration, so people who can honesty claim an IQ score that high are not, by default, lying. You reacted as if I was assuming a perfectly accurate method was used and this guy’s true IQ was 220. However, I had stated that I was arguing that your assertion that the person must be “lying or from the future” was incorrect.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/kk/why_are_individual_iq_differences_ok/77f5
This is why I got irritated with you and wanted to write you off.
What we need to be asking here is not “Who irritates the most people during debates?”—people can be irritated by the difficulty of being made to grapple with good reasoning skills just as easily as the annoyance of tolerating poor reasoning skills. The question should not even be “Who gives up on their debates most frequently?” because if your opponent is just shooting logical fallacy silly string, it’s justified to end it—so you don’t always lose a precious learning opportunity when you cut it short. What I think we should be asking is “When we get frustrated in a debate, how can we tell where the problem is?”
You know, I think I’ve rested enough from our debate now that if you wanted to take me up on my open invitation to administer ass kickings to my ideas, I’d be up for another bout with you.
Regardless of the merit of intellectual masochism it may be politically expedient for you to ease up on using this language to describe your interactions. If you already find it infuriating that shminux is able to quote you for the purpose of doing reputation damage then shame on you if he fools you twice. Be more careful with your words in order to not make yourself an easy target.
To put it another way, talking about how much you like ass kickings and inviting ‘bouts’ is not the optimal way for you to provoke the kind of quality intellectual challenge you desire.
Alright, I see that you probably have a good point Wedrifid. I would like your advice if you have some. Also, did you get the two emails I sent around 20 hours ago?