I think my “no free will believing self” causes me to model my future self more pessimistically, albeit more accurately, than my “free will believing self” used to.
More specifically, I now pretty much by default see my future self as destined to fail at achieving my current goals due to hyperbolic discounting and, among other things, unexpectedly low willpower striking at random times and lasting for random periods. So, my focus is mainly on continual massive upfront investment during the good times (the rare days when I’ve got an abundance of willpower) in order to mitigate these willpower failure risks and keep my productivity much more stable and higher in the long-run.
This probably isn’t necessary for most people, but I suspect it is a good tactic for those who, like me, are extremely volatile in terms of day-to-day willpower stores and who fail miserably at achieving their goals if they try to just “power through” at all times and ‘believe in the belief’ of free will.
Not necessarily. Sure, some people will just jerk their knees, but the fact of choosing that username is indicative of something. The first two obvious alternatives are “is a troll” and “is politically mind-killed”.
Of course—every interaction provides information on all participants :-)
P.S. “is a troll” is not because of specifically Jeb—s/Jeb/Hillary/ and nothing would change—but because of choosing a politically polarizing symbol.
He chooses a username that invites ad-hominem, such as you’re engaging in—that is the direction you jerk your knees, not political alignment—in a forum which works to move past such biases.
If his username isn’t appropriate here, it’s not because it’s not fundamentally clever, but because the audience hasn’t been paying attention to, or learning from, their lessons.
If his username affects your judgment of what he has to say, and you realize this, then you’ve just learned something about yourself, and you should thank him, instead of condemning him. He’s just done you a favor.
Of course, people don’t actually want their own biases to be shown to them, nor to admit to them so that they can get past them. They’d rather the cause of the bias go away than have to confront it.
Granted, he could just be making a political statement, or be a troll. Thank him anyways.
The question is not of “appropriateness”. Choices you make provide information about you. The more idiosyncratic choices you make, the more information these choices provide.
A username of “Bob” doesn’t provide much. A username of “XXXpretty77XXX” provides some. A username of “I_will_fuck_you_all_with_my_big_dick” provides a lot.
If his username affects your judgment of what he has to say
His username is evidence that (among other things) forms my opinion of him. I don’t see how it can be any different.
You mistake what ad-hominem, as a bias, is. It is a characteristic of an argument or reaction that is focusing on the person making the arguments, rather than the arguments themselves; the validity of an argument is independent of the person making that argument. Anybody modifying the credibility of an argument because of its source is engaging in ad-hominem. In laymen terms, the term is used to describe an argument against a person, but it is broader than that, as a bias.
The question is not of “appropriateness”. Choices you make provide information about you. The more idiosyncratic choices you make, the more information these choices provide.
Yes. But it provides information about the source of an argument, not the argument itself.
His username is evidence that (among other things) forms my opinion of him. I don’t see how it can be any different.
Where does your opinion of him, as a person, become relevant? That’s the key question.
Your mistake is that you treat the situation as if I’m attacking some arguments by JEB_4_PREZ_2016. I am not. We are not discussing an object-level issue, we’re discussing the consequences of choosing an unusual username.
Where does your opinion of him, as a person, become relevant?
In forming priors about his posts.
To give an example, if I develop an opinion that Alice tends to post incoherent wall-of-text ramblings with zero interesting content, I will stop reading her posts. Or, say, if I observe that Bob is obsessed with the destruction of Carthage and turns every post of his into an argument that Carthage must be destroyed, I will discount his posts (and maybe stop reading them, too).
Your mistake is that you treat the situation as if I’m attacking some arguments by JEB_4_PREZ_2016. I am not. We are not discussing an object-level issue, we’re discussing the consequences of choosing an unusual username.
Your mistake is assuming I am making that mistake, and arguing as if that were the case. You’ve started following a script; you think I’ve accused you of an ad-hominem, and are looking for the ad-hominem you made. A person comes before the Roman Senate wearing nothing but sandals, and presents a marvelous case on a currently discussed issue. The ad-hominem there took place before one of the senators, who disagreed with him, complained that he wasn’t properly attired; it took place in the mind of the senators who were already discounting what he had to say, without having said a word against him.
In forming priors about his posts.
If that wordplay was deliberate, kudos.
And yep. So do you think ad-hominem is useful, then? (Of course it is. I’d rather read Scott Alexander’s thoughts on something than Aaron Clarey’s.)
Is it important that we notice it in a relatively controlled environment, so that, if it is in fact in error, we can correct for it when the heuristic leads us astray?
I have a feeling you’re extending the definition of ad hominem into places it wasn’t meant to go. It is, basically, an invalid method of refuting an argument. It says nothing about which arguments to pay attention to, for example. Calling even a “useful” ad hominem something like considering the reputation of a speaker before deciding whether to allocate your valuable attention to his speech is a stretch, I think.
No. A bias you haven’t noticed in the formation of your opinions of an argument is, however, an ad-hominem. Thoughtcrime is the refusal to think certain classes of thoughts; it’s more useful to be able to analyze your own thoughts for faulty patterns, so that you can correct for them, than pretend they don’t exist.
I have a feeling you’re extending the definition of ad hominem into places it wasn’t meant to go. It is, basically, an invalid method of refuting an argument. It says nothing about which arguments to pay attention to, for example. Calling even a “useful” ad hominem something like considering the reputation of a speaker before deciding whether to allocate your valuable attention to his speech is a stretch, I think.
Say what you mean. You disagree with my definition.
It’s not a stretch, however. You can ad-hominem in your mind—if you think the words “This person is an [x], so I don’t have to listen to them” as a reason for ignoring an argument you should be listening to. The failure to express this thought, but acting as if you have, is no less the same class of problematic behavior—more so, for your refusal to acknowledge the reason for your dismissal.
You can ad-hominem in your mind—if you think the words “This person is an [x], so I don’t have to listen to them” as a reason for ignoring an argument you should be listening to.
I certainly do that—it’s just that I don’t think this activity can be usefully labeled “ad hominem”. There is a tricky part in your sentence, though—what is that “should be listening to” and where does it come from? How do I know what I should be listening to?
I certainly do that—it’s just that I don’t think this activity can be usefully labeled “ad hominem”. There is a tricky part in your sentence, though—what is that “should be listening to” and where does it come from? How do I know what I should be listening to?
How do you know what you shouldn’t be listening to? Or, to put a finer edge on it—you’re already using a criteria for deciding what you shouldn’t be listening to, the criteria you refuse to call ad-hominem. Why did you choose that criteria?
Past experience, general considerations, inferences, all the usual stuff.
In the Internet age you decline much MUCH more content than you accept. The opportunity costs are noticeable and you pretty much have to prefilter your information flow if you don’t want to be standing with your face in front of an operating water canon.
Given all this, the selection process is going to be noisy, slanted, and very much imperfect. I suspect that opportunities to improve it are going to revolve around more filtering, not less. That’s a complicated and hugely influential process. Sticking an ad hominem label somewhere in there seems.. not the best idea.
Sticking an ad hominem label in there is accurate. More importantly, it lets you improve your filters with information on when ad hominem is generally correct—as opposed to incorrect. Throwing out the label because it offends your sensibilities limits your ability to use the information associated with that label.
That label does not offend my sensibilities which are pretty hard to offend, anyway. It’s inappropriate, not useful, serves only to confuse, and just plain wrong :-P
I think my “no free will believing self” causes me to model my future self more pessimistically, albeit more accurately, than my “free will believing self” used to.
More specifically, I now pretty much by default see my future self as destined to fail at achieving my current goals due to hyperbolic discounting and, among other things, unexpectedly low willpower striking at random times and lasting for random periods. So, my focus is mainly on continual massive upfront investment during the good times (the rare days when I’ve got an abundance of willpower) in order to mitigate these willpower failure risks and keep my productivity much more stable and higher in the long-run.
This probably isn’t necessary for most people, but I suspect it is a good tactic for those who, like me, are extremely volatile in terms of day-to-day willpower stores and who fail miserably at achieving their goals if they try to just “power through” at all times and ‘believe in the belief’ of free will.
… you sound like a smart guy, but you are going to have a hard time being taken seriously here with that username.
That says more about the people who have trouble taking him seriously than it does about him, however.
Not necessarily. Sure, some people will just jerk their knees, but the fact of choosing that username is indicative of something. The first two obvious alternatives are “is a troll” and “is politically mind-killed”.
Sure. But what it’s indicative of is colored by which way you jerk your knees, as you inadvertently demonstrate.
Of course—every interaction provides information on all participants :-)
P.S. “is a troll” is not because of specifically Jeb—s/Jeb/Hillary/ and nothing would change—but because of choosing a politically polarizing symbol.
He chooses a username that invites ad-hominem, such as you’re engaging in—that is the direction you jerk your knees, not political alignment—in a forum which works to move past such biases.
If his username isn’t appropriate here, it’s not because it’s not fundamentally clever, but because the audience hasn’t been paying attention to, or learning from, their lessons.
If his username affects your judgment of what he has to say, and you realize this, then you’ve just learned something about yourself, and you should thank him, instead of condemning him. He’s just done you a favor.
Of course, people don’t actually want their own biases to be shown to them, nor to admit to them so that they can get past them. They’d rather the cause of the bias go away than have to confront it.
Granted, he could just be making a political statement, or be a troll. Thank him anyways.
I am? Quote me.
The question is not of “appropriateness”. Choices you make provide information about you. The more idiosyncratic choices you make, the more information these choices provide.
A username of “Bob” doesn’t provide much. A username of “XXXpretty77XXX” provides some. A username of “I_will_fuck_you_all_with_my_big_dick” provides a lot.
His username is evidence that (among other things) forms my opinion of him. I don’t see how it can be any different.
You mistake what ad-hominem, as a bias, is. It is a characteristic of an argument or reaction that is focusing on the person making the arguments, rather than the arguments themselves; the validity of an argument is independent of the person making that argument. Anybody modifying the credibility of an argument because of its source is engaging in ad-hominem. In laymen terms, the term is used to describe an argument against a person, but it is broader than that, as a bias.
Yes. But it provides information about the source of an argument, not the argument itself.
Where does your opinion of him, as a person, become relevant? That’s the key question.
I notice you didn’t quote me. :-/
Your mistake is that you treat the situation as if I’m attacking some arguments by JEB_4_PREZ_2016. I am not. We are not discussing an object-level issue, we’re discussing the consequences of choosing an unusual username.
In forming priors about his posts.
To give an example, if I develop an opinion that Alice tends to post incoherent wall-of-text ramblings with zero interesting content, I will stop reading her posts. Or, say, if I observe that Bob is obsessed with the destruction of Carthage and turns every post of his into an argument that Carthage must be destroyed, I will discount his posts (and maybe stop reading them, too).
Your mistake is assuming I am making that mistake, and arguing as if that were the case. You’ve started following a script; you think I’ve accused you of an ad-hominem, and are looking for the ad-hominem you made. A person comes before the Roman Senate wearing nothing but sandals, and presents a marvelous case on a currently discussed issue. The ad-hominem there took place before one of the senators, who disagreed with him, complained that he wasn’t properly attired; it took place in the mind of the senators who were already discounting what he had to say, without having said a word against him.
If that wordplay was deliberate, kudos.
And yep. So do you think ad-hominem is useful, then? (Of course it is. I’d rather read Scott Alexander’s thoughts on something than Aaron Clarey’s.)
Is it important that we notice it in a relatively controlled environment, so that, if it is in fact in error, we can correct for it when the heuristic leads us astray?
I’d say the answer is equally obvious.
Ah, so a precrime thoughtcrime ad hominem? :-D
I have a feeling you’re extending the definition of ad hominem into places it wasn’t meant to go. It is, basically, an invalid method of refuting an argument. It says nothing about which arguments to pay attention to, for example. Calling even a “useful” ad hominem something like considering the reputation of a speaker before deciding whether to allocate your valuable attention to his speech is a stretch, I think.
No. A bias you haven’t noticed in the formation of your opinions of an argument is, however, an ad-hominem. Thoughtcrime is the refusal to think certain classes of thoughts; it’s more useful to be able to analyze your own thoughts for faulty patterns, so that you can correct for them, than pretend they don’t exist.
Say what you mean. You disagree with my definition.
It’s not a stretch, however. You can ad-hominem in your mind—if you think the words “This person is an [x], so I don’t have to listen to them” as a reason for ignoring an argument you should be listening to. The failure to express this thought, but acting as if you have, is no less the same class of problematic behavior—more so, for your refusal to acknowledge the reason for your dismissal.
That wasn’t an entirely serious sentence :-)
I certainly do that—it’s just that I don’t think this activity can be usefully labeled “ad hominem”. There is a tricky part in your sentence, though—what is that “should be listening to” and where does it come from? How do I know what I should be listening to?
How do you know what you shouldn’t be listening to? Or, to put a finer edge on it—you’re already using a criteria for deciding what you shouldn’t be listening to, the criteria you refuse to call ad-hominem. Why did you choose that criteria?
Past experience, general considerations, inferences, all the usual stuff.
In the Internet age you decline much MUCH more content than you accept. The opportunity costs are noticeable and you pretty much have to prefilter your information flow if you don’t want to be standing with your face in front of an operating water canon.
Given all this, the selection process is going to be noisy, slanted, and very much imperfect. I suspect that opportunities to improve it are going to revolve around more filtering, not less. That’s a complicated and hugely influential process. Sticking an ad hominem label somewhere in there seems.. not the best idea.
Sticking an ad hominem label in there is accurate. More importantly, it lets you improve your filters with information on when ad hominem is generally correct—as opposed to incorrect. Throwing out the label because it offends your sensibilities limits your ability to use the information associated with that label.
That label does not offend my sensibilities which are pretty hard to offend, anyway. It’s inappropriate, not useful, serves only to confuse, and just plain wrong :-P