That, believe it or not, was actually Vassar’s point: artists are, in particular, humans. Which means that they have general intelligence and are not necessarily confined to stereotypical “artist” tasks. Which I find to be a rather uplifting point, personally.
Continue this thread with thomblake, who has identified the issue more precisely than I can.
It is only ridiculous if you confuse a statement with its converse: “only a human” is not the same as “every human”.
“Those that can help us are humans” is logically equivalent to “Only a human can help us.” Both are effectively zero-information sentences. No converse fallacy here.
But the actual nature of the statement is of course rhetorical: “to help us, you should be thinking of yourself as a human—something with general intelligence, and not something terribly more specific”.
[...]
It wasn’t just the reference. It was the conjunction of the reference with the “counterpoint” thing, a combination that produced the effect of an aggressive (or at least ostentatious) “I AM IN A DIFFERENT TRIBE FROM YOU” signal.
I guess the lesson here is that signal mismatches happen to everyone!
Continue this thread with thomblake, who has identified the issue more precisely than I can.
I have been working on a reply to thomblake for a while, but I do not really have much of a desire to continue this thread: it is causing me to get upset at LW, a state I do not wish to be in.
“Those that can help us are humans” is logically equivalent to “Only a human can help us.” Both are effectively zero-information sentences. No converse fallacy here.
The converse fallacy occurred when you took “only a human can help us” to mean “every human can help us”—your “ridiculous” criticism, which is distinct from your “zero-information” criticism—here:
Of course Vassar isn’t looking for mere humans
/
I guess the lesson here is that signal mismatches happen to everyone!
Are you implying that you didn’t comprehend the rhetorical meaning of Vassar’s statement? I find that implausible.
The converse fallacy occurred when you took “only a human can help us” to mean “every human can help us”—your “ridiculous” criticism, which is distinct from your “zero-information” criticism—here:
Of course Vassar isn’t looking for mere humans
I don’t understand your confusion. I’m only making one criticism. The statement is ridiculous because it has no informational content. I stated that in the sentence prior to the quoted one. I never assumed “only a human can help us” meant “every human can help us”.
Are you implying that you didn’t comprehend the rhetorical meaning of Vassar’s statement? I find that implausible.
It was the second meaning I found, after I judged the first one to be improbable. I’m pointing out the irony of you being disappointed at others finding an offensive-but-probably-unintentional subtext in Vassar’s work, while also yourself finding an offensive-but-probably-unintentional subtext in the previous comment.
Continue this thread with thomblake, who has identified the issue more precisely than I can.
“Those that can help us are humans” is logically equivalent to “Only a human can help us.” Both are effectively zero-information sentences. No converse fallacy here.
I guess the lesson here is that signal mismatches happen to everyone!
I have been working on a reply to thomblake for a while, but I do not really have much of a desire to continue this thread: it is causing me to get upset at LW, a state I do not wish to be in.
The converse fallacy occurred when you took “only a human can help us” to mean “every human can help us”—your “ridiculous” criticism, which is distinct from your “zero-information” criticism—here:
/
Are you implying that you didn’t comprehend the rhetorical meaning of Vassar’s statement? I find that implausible.
I don’t understand your confusion. I’m only making one criticism. The statement is ridiculous because it has no informational content. I stated that in the sentence prior to the quoted one. I never assumed “only a human can help us” meant “every human can help us”.
It was the second meaning I found, after I judged the first one to be improbable. I’m pointing out the irony of you being disappointed at others finding an offensive-but-probably-unintentional subtext in Vassar’s work, while also yourself finding an offensive-but-probably-unintentional subtext in the previous comment.