The use of the past tense here reveals the common belief that there aren’t any composers any more. I would like to bring it to your attention that this is false.
That is, at best, weakly implied, and the most charitable interpretation seems to be that Swimmer963 wanted to limit their message to things they knew were true (famous, dead composers had property X) and not speculate on things they might not know (alive composers have / don’t have property X).
That is, at best, weakly implied, and the most charitable interpretation seems to be that Swimmer963 wanted to limit his message to things he knew were true (famous, dead composers had property X) and not speculate on things he might not know (alive composers have / don’t have property X).
First of all, maybe I’m misremembering, but I thought Swimmer963 was a “she”.
Secondly, I can understand if maybe it doesn’t bother you that people instinctively, automatically associate “composers” with “the past”, but I am entitled to be bothered by it, and to correct it when I come across it.
limit his message to things he knew were true (famous, dead composers had property X) and not speculate on things he might not know (alive composers have / don’t have property X).
The error of this is not in being epistemically cautious, it is in drawing the distinction between “past composers” and “present composers”, thereby privileging the hypothesis that the two groups may differ with regard to the characteristics under discussion.
Here is a way that Swimmer963 could have expressed the thought without communicating the implication that contemporary composers (some of whom read Less Wrong) are too low-status to be acknowledged:
“Some composers (Mozart being a famous historical example) have incredible capacities to do this...”
First of all, maybe I’m misremembering, but I thought Swimmer963 was a “she”.
Thanks for pointing that out; I’ve changed the ‘he’s to ’they’s.
I am entitled to be bothered by it, and to correct it when I come across it.
Ok, but emotionally satisfying responses are rarely strategic responses. The positive advice in your post (this ability can be trained) seems like an afterthought. If you led off with that, you would impart the same content (modern composers exist and have comparable or superior skill levels) and far superior context (‘I am confident and helping’ instead of ‘I am offended and correcting’).
It doesn’t actually bother me what gender people think I am; I would like to think the ideas in my posts don’t depend on the fact that I’m female to be relevant.
That is, at best, weakly implied, and the most charitable interpretation seems to be that Swimmer963 wanted to limit their message to things they knew were true (famous, dead composers had property X) and not speculate on things they might not know (alive composers have / don’t have property X).
First of all, maybe I’m misremembering, but I thought Swimmer963 was a “she”.
Secondly, I can understand if maybe it doesn’t bother you that people instinctively, automatically associate “composers” with “the past”, but I am entitled to be bothered by it, and to correct it when I come across it.
The error of this is not in being epistemically cautious, it is in drawing the distinction between “past composers” and “present composers”, thereby privileging the hypothesis that the two groups may differ with regard to the characteristics under discussion.
Here is a way that Swimmer963 could have expressed the thought without communicating the implication that contemporary composers (some of whom read Less Wrong) are too low-status to be acknowledged:
“Some composers (Mozart being a famous historical example) have incredible capacities to do this...”
Thanks for pointing that out; I’ve changed the ‘he’s to ’they’s.
Ok, but emotionally satisfying responses are rarely strategic responses. The positive advice in your post (this ability can be trained) seems like an afterthought. If you led off with that, you would impart the same content (modern composers exist and have comparable or superior skill levels) and far superior context (‘I am confident and helping’ instead of ‘I am offended and correcting’).
It doesn’t actually bother me what gender people think I am; I would like to think the ideas in my posts don’t depend on the fact that I’m female to be relevant.
True, but I enjoyed komponisto’s style in this case.