I was actually already thinking about just people on LessWrong when I wrote that. I think it’s almost everyone on LessWrong.
There’s no way this is true.
What I can say is, if you are trying to convince me
Not really, no. As you say, you’ve made your position clear. I’m not sure what I could say to convince you otherwise, and that’s not really my goal, anyhow. As far as I’m concerned, what I’m saying is extremely obvious. For example, you write:
I think a community will achieve much better outcomes if being bothered by the example message is considered normal and acceptable, and writing the example message is considered bad.
And this is obviously, empirically false. The most intellectually productive environments/organizations in the history of the world have been those where you can say stuff like the example comment without concern for censure, and where it’s assumed that nobody will be bothered by it. (Again, see the Philip Greenspun MIT anecdote I cited for one example; but there are many others.)
(I don’t even believe that you’re not bothered by this kind of thing;[1] I think you are and it does change your conduct as well, although I totally believe that you believe you’re not bothered.)
I think that you are typical-minding very strongly. It seems as if you’re not capable of imagining that someone can fail to perceive the sort of thing we’re discussing as being some sort of social attack. This is causing you to both totally misunderstand my own perspective, and to have a mistaken belief about how “almost everyone on LessWrong” thinks. (I don’t know if you just haven’t spent much time around people of a certain mental make-up, or what.)
This is something I usually wouldn’t say out of politeness/vibe protection, but since you don’t think I should be doing that, saying it kind of feels more respectful, idk.
I appreciate it! I think this is actually an excellent example of how “vibe protection” is bad, because it prevents us from discussing this sort of thing—which is obviously bad, because it’s central to the disagreement!
I think that you are typical-minding very strongly. It seems as if you’re not capable of imagining that someone can fail to perceive the sort of thing we’re discussing as being some sort of social attack. This is causing you to both totally misunderstand my own perspective, and to have a mistaken belief about how “almost everyone on LessWrong” thinks. (I don’t know if you just haven’t spent much time around people of a certain mental make-up, or what.)
I think I’m capable of imagining that someone can fail to perceive this sort of thing. I know this because I did imagine this—when you told me you don’t care, and every comment I had read from you was in the same style, I (perhaps naively) just assumed that you’re telling the truth.
But then you wrote this reply to me, which was significantly friendlier than any other post you’ve written to me. This came directly after I said this
BTW I think asking me what I mean by vibes is completely reasonable. Someone strong-downvoted your comment I guess because it sounds pedantic but I don’t agree with this, I don’t think this is a case where the concept so obvious that you shouldn’t ask for a definition. (I strong-upvoted back to 0.)
And then also your latest comment (the one I’m replying to) is the least friendly, except for the final paragraph, which is friendly again. So, I when I said did something unusually nice,[1] you were being nice in response. When I was the most rude, in my previous comment, you were the most rude back. Your other comments in this thread that stand out as more nice are those in response to Ben Pace rather than habryka.
… so in summary, you’re obviously just navigating social vibes like a normal person. I was willing to take your words that you’re immune, but not if you’re demonstrating otherwise! (A fun heuristic is just to look at {number of !}/{post length}. There are exceptions, but most of the time, !s soften the vibe.)
clarifying that this was not an intended trap; I just genuinely don’t get why the particular comment asking me to define vibes should get downvoted. (Although I did deliberately not explain why I said I don’t believe you; I wanted to see if you’d ask or just jump to a conlucusion.)
Frankly, I think that you’re mistaking noise for signal here. There’s no “niceness” or “rudeness” going on in these comments, there are just various straightforwardly appropriate responses to various statements / claims / comments / etc.
But that’s just the thing: you shouldn’t be thinking of object-level discussions on LW as “social situations” which you need to “navigate”. If that’s how you’re approaching things, then of course you’re going to have all of these reactions—and you’ve doomed the whole enterprise right from the start! You’re operating on too high a simulacrum level. No useful intellectual work will get done that way.
There’s just no need for this sort of “higher simulacrum level” stuff. Is my comment “nice”? Is it “rude”? No, it’s just saying what I think is true and relevant. If you stop trying to detect “niceness” and “rudeness” in my comments, it’ll be simpler for everyone involved. That’s the benefit of abjuring “vibes”: we can get down to the important stuff.
… on the other hand, maybe everything I just said in the above paragraph is totally wrong, and you should instead try much harder to detect “vibes”:
I just genuinely don’t get why the particular comment asking me to define vibes should get downvoted
Do you mean this literally? Because that’s intensely ironic, if so! You see, it’s extremely obvious to me why that comment got downvoted. If I get it, and you don’t, then… what does that say about our respective ability to understand “vibes”, to “navigate social situations”, and generally to understand what’s going on in discussions like this? (No, really—what does it say about those things? That’s not a rhetorical question, and I absolutely cannot predict what your response is going to be.)
Do you mean this literally? Because that’s intensely ironic, if so! You see, it’s extremely obvious to me why that comment got downvoted.
I didn’t say I don’t get why it happened; I said, I don’t get why it should happen, meaning I don’t see a reason I agree with, I think the comment is fine. (And if it matters, I never thought about what I think would have happened or why with this comment, so I neither made a true nor a false prediction.)
There’s no way this is true.
Not really, no. As you say, you’ve made your position clear. I’m not sure what I could say to convince you otherwise, and that’s not really my goal, anyhow. As far as I’m concerned, what I’m saying is extremely obvious. For example, you write:
And this is obviously, empirically false. The most intellectually productive environments/organizations in the history of the world have been those where you can say stuff like the example comment without concern for censure, and where it’s assumed that nobody will be bothered by it. (Again, see the Philip Greenspun MIT anecdote I cited for one example; but there are many others.)
I think that you are typical-minding very strongly. It seems as if you’re not capable of imagining that someone can fail to perceive the sort of thing we’re discussing as being some sort of social attack. This is causing you to both totally misunderstand my own perspective, and to have a mistaken belief about how “almost everyone on LessWrong” thinks. (I don’t know if you just haven’t spent much time around people of a certain mental make-up, or what.)
I appreciate it! I think this is actually an excellent example of how “vibe protection” is bad, because it prevents us from discussing this sort of thing—which is obviously bad, because it’s central to the disagreement!
I think I’m capable of imagining that someone can fail to perceive this sort of thing. I know this because I did imagine this—when you told me you don’t care, and every comment I had read from you was in the same style, I (perhaps naively) just assumed that you’re telling the truth.
But then you wrote this reply to me, which was significantly friendlier than any other post you’ve written to me. This came directly after I said this
And then also your latest comment (the one I’m replying to) is the least friendly, except for the final paragraph, which is friendly again. So, I when I said did something unusually nice,[1] you were being nice in response. When I was the most rude, in my previous comment, you were the most rude back. Your other comments in this thread that stand out as more nice are those in response to Ben Pace rather than habryka.
… so in summary, you’re obviously just navigating social vibes like a normal person. I was willing to take your words that you’re immune, but not if you’re demonstrating otherwise! (A fun heuristic is just to look at {number of !}/{post length}. There are exceptions, but most of the time, !s soften the vibe.)
clarifying that this was not an intended trap; I just genuinely don’t get why the particular comment asking me to define vibes should get downvoted. (Although I did deliberately not explain why I said I don’t believe you; I wanted to see if you’d ask or just jump to a conlucusion.)
Frankly, I think that you’re mistaking noise for signal here. There’s no “niceness” or “rudeness” going on in these comments, there are just various straightforwardly appropriate responses to various statements / claims / comments / etc.
This is related to what I meant when I wrote:
There’s just no need for this sort of “higher simulacrum level” stuff. Is my comment “nice”? Is it “rude”? No, it’s just saying what I think is true and relevant. If you stop trying to detect “niceness” and “rudeness” in my comments, it’ll be simpler for everyone involved. That’s the benefit of abjuring “vibes”: we can get down to the important stuff.
… on the other hand, maybe everything I just said in the above paragraph is totally wrong, and you should instead try much harder to detect “vibes”:
Do you mean this literally? Because that’s intensely ironic, if so! You see, it’s extremely obvious to me why that comment got downvoted. If I get it, and you don’t, then… what does that say about our respective ability to understand “vibes”, to “navigate social situations”, and generally to understand what’s going on in discussions like this? (No, really—what does it say about those things? That’s not a rhetorical question, and I absolutely cannot predict what your response is going to be.)
I didn’t say I don’t get why it happened; I said, I don’t get why it should happen, meaning I don’t see a reason I agree with, I think the comment is fine. (And if it matters, I never thought about what I think would have happened or why with this comment, so I neither made a true nor a false prediction.)
I see… well, fair enough, I guess. (I find the original wording confusing, FYI, but your explanation does clear things up.)