If someone wanted to just communicate that people have a complicated and often sensitive relationship to criticism
What does this have to do with anything I wrote in my previous comment? I said he means people have “soft egos.” What relation is to between them having a “complicated and often sensitive relationship to criticism?”
I don’t think Said believes people have a “complicated and often sensitive relationship to criticism”; I think they generally cannot receiving any meaningful criticism. “You have a complicated relationship to criticism” simply has a completely different meaning than “You can’t take criticism.”
I can read the subtext, and I really have very little patience for people trying to claim it isn’t there.
You are reading subtext… that isn’t there? Obviously?
Frankly, for all you’re commenting about frustrating patterns and lack of patience, from my perspective it’s a lot more frustrating to deal with someone that makes up interpretations of words that do not align with the text being used (as you are doing here) than with someone who thinks everyone has weak egos.
“He thinks I’m stupid or evil” vs “He thinks I can’t engage with people who say I have obvious gaps in my reasoning” have both different connotations and different denotations.
FWIW I regularly read a barely-veiled contempt/derision into Said’s comments for many people on LessWrong, including in the passage that Habryka quotes. My guess is that we should accept that some people strongly read this and some people do not, and move on with the conversation, rather than insist that there is an ‘obvious’ reading of intent/emotion.
(To be clear I am willing to take the side of the bet that the majority of people will read contempt/derision for other commenters into Said’s comments, including the one you mention. Open to setting up a survey on this if you are feel confident it will not show this.)
Open to setting up a survey on this if you are feel confident it will not show this.
Given the current situation, I think it’s understandable for me not to commit to anything beyond the immediate short-term as relates to this site. I’d rather not write this comment either, but you’ve made a good-faith and productive offer, so it’d be rude of me to go radio silence (even though I should,[1] and will, after this one).
But as long as I’m here...
FWIW I regularly read a barely-veiled contempt/derision into Said’s comments for many people on LessWrong, including in the passage that Habryka quotes. My guess is that we should accept that some people strongly read this and some people do not, and move on with the conversation, rather than insist that there is an ‘obvious’ reading of intent/emotion.
I also read something-describable-as-contempt in that Said comment, even though it’s not the word I’d ideally use for it.
But, most importantly, I think it’s “contempt for their weak egos”[2] and not “contempt for their intelligence or morality.” And this is both the original point of discussion and the only one I have presented my case on, because it’s the only one I care about (in this convo).
Look, man, it’s definitely “contempt for them” not just “contempt for their weak egos’”.
It’s not like Said is walking around distinguishing between people’s ego’s and the rest of their personality or identity. If someone wanted to communicate “contempt for your weak ego, because of how it prevents you from having good epistemic/contributing meaningfully to a truth-seeking forum” you would use very different words. You would say things like “I have nothing against you as a whole, but I do have something against this weak ego of yours, which I think is holding you back”.
In as much as you are just trying to say “contempt for them, because of their weak egos”, then sure, whenever someone acts contemptuous they will have some reason. In this case the reason is “I judge your ego to be weak” but that doesn’t really change anything.
No, I don’t really think that is how communication works. I think if we have a conversation in which different people repeatedly interpret the same word to have drastically different meaning, then the thing to do is to settle on the meaning of those words, and if necessary ask participants in conversations to disambiguate and use new words, not to just ignore this and move on.
I do not think much hope and good conversations are along the path of trying to just accept that for some people the words “grube” means “a large golden sphere” and to another person means “an imminent threat to punch the other person”, if “grube” is a common topic of discussion. At the very least both parties need to mutually recognize both interpretations, even if they do not come naturally to them.
Yes, I agree it’s not crucial to settle what the “most obvious” reading is in all circumstances, but it’s actually really important that people in the conversation have at least some mutual understanding of how other people interpret what they say, and adjust accordingly.
(In this case, I don’t think any actual communication failure at the level that sunwillrise is describing is happening.)
Seriously, if you are incapable of understanding and parsing the subtext that is present in that comment, I do not think you are capable of participating productively in at least this online discussion.
I am really really not making things up here. I am confident if you run the relevant sections of text by any remotely representative subset of the population, you will get close to full consensus that the relevant section invokes substantial judgement about both the intelligence and moral character of the people involved. It’s really not hard. It’s not a subtle subtext.
Seriously, if you are incapable of understanding and parsing the subtext that is present in that comment, I do not think you are capable of participating productively in at least this online discussion.
I think I am capable of understanding what’s present in that comment, and I’m also capable of understanding why you read a subtext into it that’s not there.[1] As a result of this, I think I can (and will, and already have) contribute very productively to this discussion.
By contrast, merely repeating the word “really” and the same quasi-arguments you have employed before doesn’t make your conclusion any stronger. In the spirit of Absence of Evidence Is Evidence of Absence, the takeaway from your weak defense of your position is that’s it’s evidence your position and interpretation does not have any strong basis. After all, if it did, it’s likely you would have found it and actually written it out instead of merely repeating your conclusion with slightly different verbiage.
I… am done with this conversation. Please stop being weirdly dense. I hope it really is just a skill issue on your part and not some weird ploy to gaslight people around you. We might also just ban you. I don’t think I care about your contributions to this site, but I’ll ask other mods to make that decision who weren’t as involved in this specific conversation.
And over on my end, I hope (and believe) your reaction to this is just a heat-of-the-moment spur that happens to everyone at some point as opposed to a deliberate, considered decision to shut down discussion by banning a user who disagrees respectfully[1] with a mod.
Please stop it with the random snide remarks. It isn’t helping you, and yes, it is a serious threat of a ban, though I will not be the one making the final call.
What does this have to do with anything I wrote in my previous comment? I said he means people have “soft egos.” What relation is to between them having a “complicated and often sensitive relationship to criticism?”
The point was to write a judgement-neutral version of the statement. I don’t love the use of the word “complicated”, but the whole point of it is to distinguish an analytical statement about what people de-facto prefer, from a statement that largely serves as a platform to insult the people who have those preferences.
That is how it relates to the things you wrote. Yes, a bit of denotative meaning was lost because I wrote a quick comment and didn’t think hard about the best translation, but I think you are capable of understanding the point of the exercise.
I was trying to choose a framing that was intentionally neutral on judgement as to not beg the question on my underlying argument that the statement involves substantial judgement. If I had written an opinionated statement like “people can’t take criticism”, this would have muddles the exact distinction I was hoping to point to.
Of course I understand the point of the exercise, but I think I also understand the deep irony of you saying “of denotative meaning was lost because I wrote a quick comment and didn’t think hard about the best translation” in a discussion about semantics.
Moreover, a discussion about semantics you were not pressured into, where you had full control over what language you used, and yet also a spot where the example you personally chose to supposedly illustrate what Said really means fails on its own terms.
What does this have to do with anything I wrote in my previous comment? I said he means people have “soft egos.” What relation is to between them having a “complicated and often sensitive relationship to criticism?”
I don’t think Said believes people have a “complicated and often sensitive relationship to criticism”; I think they generally cannot receiving any meaningful criticism. “You have a complicated relationship to criticism” simply has a completely different meaning than “You can’t take criticism.”
You are reading subtext… that isn’t there? Obviously?
Frankly, for all you’re commenting about frustrating patterns and lack of patience, from my perspective it’s a lot more frustrating to deal with someone that makes up interpretations of words that do not align with the text being used (as you are doing here) than with someone who thinks everyone has weak egos.
“He thinks I’m stupid or evil” vs “He thinks I can’t engage with people who say I have obvious gaps in my reasoning” have both different connotations and different denotations.
FWIW I regularly read a barely-veiled contempt/derision into Said’s comments for many people on LessWrong, including in the passage that Habryka quotes. My guess is that we should accept that some people strongly read this and some people do not, and move on with the conversation, rather than insist that there is an ‘obvious’ reading of intent/emotion.
(To be clear I am willing to take the side of the bet that the majority of people will read contempt/derision for other commenters into Said’s comments, including the one you mention. Open to setting up a survey on this if you are feel confident it will not show this.)
Given the current situation, I think it’s understandable for me not to commit to anything beyond the immediate short-term as relates to this site. I’d rather not write this comment either, but you’ve made a good-faith and productive offer, so it’d be rude of me to go radio silence (even though I should,[1] and will, after this one).
But as long as I’m here...
I also read something-describable-as-contempt in that Said comment, even though it’s not the word I’d ideally use for it.
But, most importantly, I think it’s “contempt for their weak egos”[2] and not “contempt for their intelligence or morality.” And this is both the original point of discussion and the only one I have presented my case on, because it’s the only one I care about (in this convo).
Or might have to
Because of how this prevents them from having good epistemics/ contributing meaningfully to a truth-seeking forum
Look, man, it’s definitely “contempt for them” not just “contempt for their weak egos’”.
It’s not like Said is walking around distinguishing between people’s ego’s and the rest of their personality or identity. If someone wanted to communicate “contempt for your weak ego, because of how it prevents you from having good epistemic/contributing meaningfully to a truth-seeking forum” you would use very different words. You would say things like “I have nothing against you as a whole, but I do have something against this weak ego of yours, which I think is holding you back”.
In as much as you are just trying to say “contempt for them, because of their weak egos”, then sure, whenever someone acts contemptuous they will have some reason. In this case the reason is “I judge your ego to be weak” but that doesn’t really change anything.
No, I don’t really think that is how communication works. I think if we have a conversation in which different people repeatedly interpret the same word to have drastically different meaning, then the thing to do is to settle on the meaning of those words, and if necessary ask participants in conversations to disambiguate and use new words, not to just ignore this and move on.
I do not think much hope and good conversations are along the path of trying to just accept that for some people the words “grube” means “a large golden sphere” and to another person means “an imminent threat to punch the other person”, if “grube” is a common topic of discussion. At the very least both parties need to mutually recognize both interpretations, even if they do not come naturally to them.
Yes, I agree it’s not crucial to settle what the “most obvious” reading is in all circumstances, but it’s actually really important that people in the conversation have at least some mutual understanding of how other people interpret what they say, and adjust accordingly.
(In this case, I don’t think any actual communication failure at the level that sunwillrise is describing is happening.)
Seriously, if you are incapable of understanding and parsing the subtext that is present in that comment, I do not think you are capable of participating productively in at least this online discussion.
I am really really not making things up here. I am confident if you run the relevant sections of text by any remotely representative subset of the population, you will get close to full consensus that the relevant section invokes substantial judgement about both the intelligence and moral character of the people involved. It’s really not hard. It’s not a subtle subtext.
I think I am capable of understanding what’s present in that comment, and I’m also capable of understanding why you read a subtext into it that’s not there.[1] As a result of this, I think I can (and will, and already have) contribute very productively to this discussion.
By contrast, merely repeating the word “really” and the same quasi-arguments you have employed before doesn’t make your conclusion any stronger. In the spirit of Absence of Evidence Is Evidence of Absence, the takeaway from your weak defense of your position is that’s it’s evidence your position and interpretation does not have any strong basis. After all, if it did, it’s likely you would have found it and actually written it out instead of merely repeating your conclusion with slightly different verbiage.
But in the spirit of anti-Bulverism and anti-mind-reading, I won’t write it out unless I’m explicitly asked to
I… am done with this conversation. Please stop being weirdly dense. I hope it really is just a skill issue on your part and not some weird ploy to gaslight people around you. We might also just ban you. I don’t think I care about your contributions to this site, but I’ll ask other mods to make that decision who weren’t as involved in this specific conversation.
And over on my end, I hope (and believe) your reaction to this is just a heat-of-the-moment spur that happens to everyone at some point as opposed to a deliberate, considered decision to shut down discussion by banning a user who disagrees respectfully[1] with a mod.
More respectfully than you have engaged in this thread, at least
Please stop it with the random snide remarks. It isn’t helping you, and yes, it is a serious threat of a ban, though I will not be the one making the final call.
The point was to write a judgement-neutral version of the statement. I don’t love the use of the word “complicated”, but the whole point of it is to distinguish an analytical statement about what people de-facto prefer, from a statement that largely serves as a platform to insult the people who have those preferences.
That is how it relates to the things you wrote. Yes, a bit of denotative meaning was lost because I wrote a quick comment and didn’t think hard about the best translation, but I think you are capable of understanding the point of the exercise.
I was trying to choose a framing that was intentionally neutral on judgement as to not beg the question on my underlying argument that the statement involves substantial judgement. If I had written an opinionated statement like “people can’t take criticism”, this would have muddles the exact distinction I was hoping to point to.
Of course I understand the point of the exercise, but I think I also understand the deep irony of you saying “of denotative meaning was lost because I wrote a quick comment and didn’t think hard about the best translation” in a discussion about semantics.
Moreover, a discussion about semantics you were not pressured into, where you had full control over what language you used, and yet also a spot where the example you personally chose to supposedly illustrate what Said really means fails on its own terms.