Warning- Submitters were told to not hold back for politeness. You are allowed to disagree, but these are candid comments; if you consider candidness impolite, I suggest you not read this post
I find this warning ironic given the nature of the complaints that are subsequently expressed.
I think there is an important difference between the two situations. The statements posted above were solicited by a third party, somebody who asked for candid responses, and who in turn posted a warning before releasing the statements into the community, open to all and without targeting any individual.
The coldness which these statements mention (among other things) is unsolicited, directed against individuals, and comes un-buffered by warning or apology. That seems to be why their complaint with it.
I understand that you’re probably just making a light-hearted throwaway comment.
The statements posted above were solicited by a third party, somebody who asked for candid responses,
Yes, but it was understood that the responses candor was not directed at the solicitor.
I understand that you’re probably just making a light-hearted throwaway comment.
Actually I had a serious point, that the statement constituted a tacit admission of the importance of candor to a rational discussion. If the above sentence was your attempt at a disclaimer, it back-fired horribly.
I had actually intended to write another whole paragraph explaining that maybe you were making a throwaway comment and maybe you were making a serious argument, but either way I felt I should present my rebuttal for one reason or another. Unfortunately, I got called away to work in a hurry and had to truncate my post mid-sentence and unedited. That said, it reads to me like a relatively minor piece of awkward/socially inept phrasing that I would have probably ignored if I’d been on the receiving end. Have I missed some piece of LW social etiquette, or is this just one of those moments when I sound like a complete berk and don’t notice it until it’s pointed out?
My point, though, was that it is possible, and often optimal, for both candor and sensitivity to coexist. After all, if maintaining pleasant relations and high-spirits allows individuals to perform at a higher intellectual level, then there is appreciable utility to making sure your honesty doesn’t grate on people. This doesn’t mean one has to be dishonest, just that sometimes it’s better to take precautions like the ones taken in the original post.
I suppose another example of that sort of caution is apologizing when you sound like a berk, so: sorry. :)
the statement constituted a tacit admission of the importance of candor to a rational discussion.
Based solely on observing this post without context or inferrence, I think the statement constitutes a tacit admission of the importance of candor to getting people on LessWrong to listen to you rather than its importance to “rational discussion.”
Nono, I just think the complaints weren’t worded as politely as they would have been if the submitters had un-frustrated themselves before writing them. Would have been less ironic!
I find this warning ironic given the nature of the complaints that are subsequently expressed.
I think there is an important difference between the two situations. The statements posted above were solicited by a third party, somebody who asked for candid responses, and who in turn posted a warning before releasing the statements into the community, open to all and without targeting any individual.
The coldness which these statements mention (among other things) is unsolicited, directed against individuals, and comes un-buffered by warning or apology. That seems to be why their complaint with it.
I understand that you’re probably just making a light-hearted throwaway comment.
Yes, but it was understood that the responses candor was not directed at the solicitor.
Actually I had a serious point, that the statement constituted a tacit admission of the importance of candor to a rational discussion. If the above sentence was your attempt at a disclaimer, it back-fired horribly.
I had actually intended to write another whole paragraph explaining that maybe you were making a throwaway comment and maybe you were making a serious argument, but either way I felt I should present my rebuttal for one reason or another. Unfortunately, I got called away to work in a hurry and had to truncate my post mid-sentence and unedited. That said, it reads to me like a relatively minor piece of awkward/socially inept phrasing that I would have probably ignored if I’d been on the receiving end. Have I missed some piece of LW social etiquette, or is this just one of those moments when I sound like a complete berk and don’t notice it until it’s pointed out?
My point, though, was that it is possible, and often optimal, for both candor and sensitivity to coexist. After all, if maintaining pleasant relations and high-spirits allows individuals to perform at a higher intellectual level, then there is appreciable utility to making sure your honesty doesn’t grate on people. This doesn’t mean one has to be dishonest, just that sometimes it’s better to take precautions like the ones taken in the original post.
I suppose another example of that sort of caution is apologizing when you sound like a berk, so: sorry. :)
Based solely on observing this post without context or inferrence, I think the statement constitutes a tacit admission of the importance of candor to getting people on LessWrong to listen to you rather than its importance to “rational discussion.”
Upvoted for agreement despite the last sentence.
I think the submitters were frustrated. Can we just all acknowledge that we occasionally get frustrated?
That’s dismissive of their complaints without actually addressing anything. Do you think the complaints are wrong?
Nono, I just think the complaints weren’t worded as politely as they would have been if the submitters had un-frustrated themselves before writing them. Would have been less ironic!