This is a pretty sad day for LW, to learn that you can just lie and strawman your way out of criticism, because whoever calls you on it is just “staying on the same topic for too long” :-/
(I hope you’ll pardon the digression into crude discussion of rational strategies for influence. This is a far more interesting topic than what serves for the object level at this point!)
This is a pretty sad day for LW, to learn that you can just lie and strawman your way out of criticism, because whoever calls you on it is just “staying on the same topic for too long” :-/
Speak more strategically. Don’t let the verbal signals you utter be tools you use to salve and release your own feelings. Not because it is virtuous, purely because that doesn’t get you what you want. Also note that not only am I someone who consistently voted you up and those insulting you down, my comment provided stronger support for your position than your most recent comments managed. Allow me to translate what I said into ‘fun’ rather than vaguely polite:
“You’re so right man. They’re full of shit. I mean WTF is with this claiming stuff with no evidence then ragging on you instead of answering you. That’s fucking pathetic. Ape Status Bullshit 101 - If someone asks critical questions don’t answer them, beat them with a fucking stick so nobody else thinks it’s ok to dissent. That’s what people with status and power do and people always let them get away with it. But here’s the thing: You’re making it easy for them by being a whiny little bitch. How’s that working out for you? Not working, huh? Yeah, no shit. What did you expect? Now stop crying ‘cos the world isn’t fair to you and start saying shit that works. Also, accept that you cannot change other people and instead work out what influence you can have and make it. In this case it would be ‘make all unjustified claims a net PR loss for Luke/SIAI by calling them on it effectively and moderately.’ And I’d have called that a real success. Heck, it even worked. Look at Anna’s replies from a few days ago. Now man the fuck up and stop being a pussy. Because I often agree with the complaints that you have about stuff but don’t want to look bad by association.”
Now, consider the difference between the above wording and what I actually said. Notice that it positions me as somewhat of an ally, assumes the criticisms you make of Luke are valid but at the same time doesn’t try to alienate me from the tribe. See why I chose to use the wording I did and, more importantly, which conceptual territory I chose to stake out and claim. A good rule of thumb is that if you are acting less savvy, constrained and strategic than the wedrifid persona then you are doing something wrong. Because I’m rather flippant and cavalier myself.
You had a good point, you made it, and you pointed out the problems with the responses to it. All of these comments were upvoted, many to double digits. But then your comments turned into personal attacks on Luke (suggesting he doesn’t understand the material he posts, suggesting he is lying about not seeing an earlier comment of yours). At that point, I felt (as, I’m guessing, did others), that your comments were actively counterproductive in trying to learn more about the minicamp, as well as promoting a community norm of insulting each other and assuming bad faith.
I also tend to get annoyed by, and downvote, comments to the effect of “The fact that I was downvoted reflects badly on all of you, who obviously downvoted me for [reason]” since I usually didn’t downvote for the reason mentioned and I don’t see them as a sincere attempt to understand the source of disagreement.
as well as promoting a community norm of insulting each other and assuming bad faith.
(The community norm should be to assume bad faith as much as is suggested by evidence. The extent to which bad faith is assumed shouldn’t be a product of a community norm. Insulting is rarely useful, of course.)
Given the human tendency to get emotionally involved in an argument, I think a rule of “assume bad faith as much as is suggested by evidence” qucikly devolves into “assume bad faith”. If you want to argue for a community norm of “assume bad faith as much as suggested by the evidence even after updating on all theevidence that people are really bad at evaluating other people’s motives”, I wouldn’t neccesarily disagree, but in practice, I think that looks a lot like “assume good faith”.
If there are known flaws in a method of inference, taking them into account should be part of what’s done when performing an inference, or what’s meant when suggesting to perform it. There should be no distinction between suggesting to look for a fact and suggesting to take into account possible flaws in the method of looking for that fact. This is simple exercise of the human power, something to encourage, not work around.
But, for instance, we know that flaws in our way of thinking about politics are so pervasive that we’ve decided to avoid it as much as possible. I would argue that flaws in our way of assessing whether other people in an online argument are arguing in good faith are nearly as pervasive, to the extent that assuming good faith is a better heuristic than assuming bad faith as much as is suggested by evidence.
And people who use an “assume good faith” model still change their mind once the evidence starts to accumulate; it’s about what your default assumption is, not whether it’s ever appropriate to say “You are arguing in bad faith.”
Very well.
This is a pretty sad day for LW, to learn that you can just lie and strawman your way out of criticism, because whoever calls you on it is just “staying on the same topic for too long” :-/
(I hope you’ll pardon the digression into crude discussion of rational strategies for influence. This is a far more interesting topic than what serves for the object level at this point!)
Speak more strategically. Don’t let the verbal signals you utter be tools you use to salve and release your own feelings. Not because it is virtuous, purely because that doesn’t get you what you want. Also note that not only am I someone who consistently voted you up and those insulting you down, my comment provided stronger support for your position than your most recent comments managed. Allow me to translate what I said into ‘fun’ rather than vaguely polite:
Now, consider the difference between the above wording and what I actually said. Notice that it positions me as somewhat of an ally, assumes the criticisms you make of Luke are valid but at the same time doesn’t try to alienate me from the tribe. See why I chose to use the wording I did and, more importantly, which conceptual territory I chose to stake out and claim. A good rule of thumb is that if you are acting less savvy, constrained and strategic than the wedrifid persona then you are doing something wrong. Because I’m rather flippant and cavalier myself.
People have previously tried to assist SilasBarta on the topic of useful exposition and tone, but it does not seem to have any lasting effect.
One of the most important phrases in a rationalist’s toolkit for those rare occasions when other-optimizing is called for.
I have found some success from aiming it at myself.
I really don’t think that’s the problem here.
You had a good point, you made it, and you pointed out the problems with the responses to it. All of these comments were upvoted, many to double digits. But then your comments turned into personal attacks on Luke (suggesting he doesn’t understand the material he posts, suggesting he is lying about not seeing an earlier comment of yours). At that point, I felt (as, I’m guessing, did others), that your comments were actively counterproductive in trying to learn more about the minicamp, as well as promoting a community norm of insulting each other and assuming bad faith.
I also tend to get annoyed by, and downvote, comments to the effect of “The fact that I was downvoted reflects badly on all of you, who obviously downvoted me for [reason]” since I usually didn’t downvote for the reason mentioned and I don’t see them as a sincere attempt to understand the source of disagreement.
(The community norm should be to assume bad faith as much as is suggested by evidence. The extent to which bad faith is assumed shouldn’t be a product of a community norm. Insulting is rarely useful, of course.)
Given the human tendency to get emotionally involved in an argument, I think a rule of “assume bad faith as much as is suggested by evidence” qucikly devolves into “assume bad faith”. If you want to argue for a community norm of “assume bad faith as much as suggested by the evidence even after updating on all the evidence that people are really bad at evaluating other people’s motives”, I wouldn’t neccesarily disagree, but in practice, I think that looks a lot like “assume good faith”.
If there are known flaws in a method of inference, taking them into account should be part of what’s done when performing an inference, or what’s meant when suggesting to perform it. There should be no distinction between suggesting to look for a fact and suggesting to take into account possible flaws in the method of looking for that fact. This is simple exercise of the human power, something to encourage, not work around.
But, for instance, we know that flaws in our way of thinking about politics are so pervasive that we’ve decided to avoid it as much as possible. I would argue that flaws in our way of assessing whether other people in an online argument are arguing in good faith are nearly as pervasive, to the extent that assuming good faith is a better heuristic than assuming bad faith as much as is suggested by evidence.
And people who use an “assume good faith” model still change their mind once the evidence starts to accumulate; it’s about what your default assumption is, not whether it’s ever appropriate to say “You are arguing in bad faith.”
For what it’s worth, I agree that you’re doing the right thing.
Thank you. For your karma’s sake, though, you might want to keep that to PM.
Accumulating karma is trivial; burning it is something else entirely.