Were I a gambling man, I’d be willing to bet that the downvotes were due to people not knowing what “ceteris paribus” means and not bothering to look it up. If you remove that from your statement, it seems like something most people here would disagree with. However, several people have suggested in the comments that they agree with your statement:
I find the value of a quote to be almost completely independent of its originator.
the value of an idea shouldn’t depend much on the author
(emphasis added).
These quotes suggest to me that people put some weight on who the author is, which presumably either implies your statement, or a statement that ceteris paribus, one prefers quotes from people who don’t have those qualities.
I (rather stupidly) thought [i]ceteris paribus[/i] was a user MichaelBishop was replying to, since I only happened to see this in recent comments.
But having looked it up, it doesn’t change my mind—I don’t see how it can apply: the whole point of a quote is that it is unique, therefore all other things won’t ever be equal...
The whole point of saying “ceteris paribus” or “all else equal,” is precisely that all else is not everyone will agree that all else is equal. In other words, saying “all else equal” implies “there may be other factors which matter.”
In cases you are curious, those factors include: length, literal meaning, eloquence, humor, trustworthiness of author, wisdom of author, context in which it was written, persuasiveness, memorability, and more.
Writing “ceteris paribus” or “all else equal” is useful when it increases the precision of a statement.
I guess I can’t imagine how two quotes could exist such that, if I could score them (on whatever attributes I find valuable in quote-space), they would come out equal enough that I would prefer one over the other based on the originator of the quote. I think this is due to the way I think of quotes, as unique things (i.e., apples and oranges. One could say, “I prefer fruit grown by a well-pedigreed gardener, all else being equal,” and it would (possibly) be true for lots of people. But it doesn’t really tell us what kind of fruit you like, assuming poorly-pedigreed gardeners have a non-zero chance of growing good fruit).
It could also be interpreted as a failure of my imagination, I’m sure.
In certain contexts, I take ceteris paribus to serve the same social function as “IMHO”, and I do not interpret it literally. In particular, I think Michael would have been displeased by the inclusion of a quote from Moldbug no matter how interesting or pithy it was on its own (and probably more displeased by quotes of higher value, as they would serve to raise Moldbug’s status further, which Michael believes would be harmful).
In certain contexts, I take ceteris paribus to serve the same social function as “IMHO”
I’ve never heard of that, and I have no idea why you would want to do that. Does anyone else actually use ceteris paribus to mean something like “IMHO”?
Both are often used to imply some measure of humility, in order to ward off criticism when making a statement which one expects to be controverted. Ditto for “It seems to me”, etc.
Like thomblake, I’m surprised that someone would read “Ceteris paribus” this way. It is a preemptive way to ward off criticism, yes, but not by expressing humilty, at least not in any use I recall seeing.
Besides, whatever impressions one might give by saying “Ceteris paribus”, humility is not one of them. First of all, one is more likely to come across as pompous for using Latin when the English “All else being equal” works just as well. Second, even saying “All else being equal” signals that you’ve analyzed the phenomenon into many potentially independent parameters. That is, it’s a way to claim deeper understanding, which, ceteris paribus, does not signal humility.
I suppose I don’t mean humility so much as some other kind of defense. Among rationalists, perhaps, I should by default presume ceteris paribus means what it says; but outside that realm, e.g,
“All else being equal, Greens are more moral than Blues”
is knowingly used with the connotation
“Greens are more moral than Blues”
and the ceteris paribus only comes into play once the statement is challenged (raising the standard of proof for those who disagree).
But as I admitted to Michael, I should have given him more credence than that.
I used the term ceteris paribus because its literal definition is precisely what I meant. Going forward I will simply write, “all else equal.” Ha, here’s a chance to use it:
All else equal, I prefer people quoting Moldbug choose interesting, pithy, and most importantly, enlightening, quotes. Its true this has the, IMO, unfortunate side effect of increasing Moldbug’s status, but I consider that to be of secondary importance.
Note, I was making other points as well, e.g. a quote is more useful to me if people know and respect its author.
Upon further reflection, it was uncharitable of me to disregard your ceteris paribus for the reason I did (which has nothing to do with Latin versus English; I’m one of those who prefer ceteris paribus to “all else equal”).
Were I a gambling man, I’d be willing to bet that the downvotes were due to people not knowing what “ceteris paribus” means and not bothering to look it up. If you remove that from your statement, it seems like something most people here would disagree with. However, several people have suggested in the comments that they agree with your statement:
(emphasis added).
These quotes suggest to me that people put some weight on who the author is, which presumably either implies your statement, or a statement that ceteris paribus, one prefers quotes from people who don’t have those qualities.
I (rather stupidly) thought [i]ceteris paribus[/i] was a user MichaelBishop was replying to, since I only happened to see this in recent comments.
But having looked it up, it doesn’t change my mind—I don’t see how it can apply: the whole point of a quote is that it is unique, therefore all other things won’t ever be equal...
-The quotable Thom Blake
Oddly enough, googling that (in quotes) turns up only this page, hehe
To wit:
Google search
Nothing like paraphrasing Oscar Wilde to seem profound.
The whole point of saying “ceteris paribus” or “all else equal,” is precisely that all else is not everyone will agree that all else is equal. In other words, saying “all else equal” implies “there may be other factors which matter.”
In cases you are curious, those factors include: length, literal meaning, eloquence, humor, trustworthiness of author, wisdom of author, context in which it was written, persuasiveness, memorability, and more.
Writing “ceteris paribus” or “all else equal” is useful when it increases the precision of a statement.
I guess I can’t imagine how two quotes could exist such that, if I could score them (on whatever attributes I find valuable in quote-space), they would come out equal enough that I would prefer one over the other based on the originator of the quote. I think this is due to the way I think of quotes, as unique things (i.e., apples and oranges. One could say, “I prefer fruit grown by a well-pedigreed gardener, all else being equal,” and it would (possibly) be true for lots of people. But it doesn’t really tell us what kind of fruit you like, assuming poorly-pedigreed gardeners have a non-zero chance of growing good fruit).
It could also be interpreted as a failure of my imagination, I’m sure.
In certain contexts, I take ceteris paribus to serve the same social function as “IMHO”, and I do not interpret it literally. In particular, I think Michael would have been displeased by the inclusion of a quote from Moldbug no matter how interesting or pithy it was on its own (and probably more displeased by quotes of higher value, as they would serve to raise Moldbug’s status further, which Michael believes would be harmful).
I’ve never heard of that, and I have no idea why you would want to do that. Does anyone else actually use ceteris paribus to mean something like “IMHO”?
Both are often used to imply some measure of humility, in order to ward off criticism when making a statement which one expects to be controverted. Ditto for “It seems to me”, etc.
Like thomblake, I’m surprised that someone would read “Ceteris paribus” this way. It is a preemptive way to ward off criticism, yes, but not by expressing humilty, at least not in any use I recall seeing.
Besides, whatever impressions one might give by saying “Ceteris paribus”, humility is not one of them. First of all, one is more likely to come across as pompous for using Latin when the English “All else being equal” works just as well. Second, even saying “All else being equal” signals that you’ve analyzed the phenomenon into many potentially independent parameters. That is, it’s a way to claim deeper understanding, which, ceteris paribus, does not signal humility.
fixed spelling
I suppose I don’t mean humility so much as some other kind of defense. Among rationalists, perhaps, I should by default presume ceteris paribus means what it says; but outside that realm, e.g,
“All else being equal, Greens are more moral than Blues”
is knowingly used with the connotation
“Greens are more moral than Blues”
and the ceteris paribus only comes into play once the statement is challenged (raising the standard of proof for those who disagree).
But as I admitted to Michael, I should have given him more credence than that.
I used the term ceteris paribus because its literal definition is precisely what I meant. Going forward I will simply write, “all else equal.” Ha, here’s a chance to use it: All else equal, I prefer people quoting Moldbug choose interesting, pithy, and most importantly, enlightening, quotes. Its true this has the, IMO, unfortunate side effect of increasing Moldbug’s status, but I consider that to be of secondary importance.
Note, I was making other points as well, e.g. a quote is more useful to me if people know and respect its author.
Upon further reflection, it was uncharitable of me to disregard your ceteris paribus for the reason I did (which has nothing to do with Latin versus English; I’m one of those who prefer ceteris paribus to “all else equal”).
thanks.