You should question your unstated but fundamental premise: one should avoid arguments with “hostile arguers.”
A person who argues to convince rather than to understand harms himself, but from his interlocutor’s standpoint, dealing with his arguments can be just as challenging and enlightening as arguing with someone more “intellectually honest.”
Whether an argument is worthwhile depends primarily on the competence of the arguments presented, which isn’t strongly related to the sincerity of the arguer.
Well, as the post is mainly dealing with hostile arguers that have ultimate power over you, that seems justified. Play around with looking for “challenging and enlightening” arguments when it’s not so dangerous.
Another reason one might want to engage with a “hostile arguer” is to convince a third party—any opponent in a live debate before an audience is almost certain to act as a hostile arguer.
Wow, thank God you’ve settled this question for us with your supreme grasp of rationality. I’m completely convinced by the power of your reputation to ignore all the arguments common_law made, you’ve been very helpful!
Wow, thank God you’ve settled this question for us with your supreme grasp of rationality. I’m completely convinced by the power of your reputation to ignore all the arguments common_law made, you’ve been very helpful!
Apart from the inexcusably obnoxious presentation the point hidden behind your sarcasm suggests you misunderstand the context.
Stating arguments in favour of arguing with hostile arguers is one thing. “You should question your unstated but fundamental premise” is far more than that. It uses a condescending normative dominance attempt to imply that the poster must not have ‘questioned’ or thought about a central part of the point because, presumably, if they had ‘questioned’ that they would have ended up agreeing with common_law instead.
In my judgement the opening poster deserves some moral support and protection against that kind of sniping. I chose (largely out of politeness) to express simple agreement with the poster, rather than a more aggressive and detailed rejection of common_law.
Since you (passive aggressively) asked:
Whether an argument is worthwhile depends primarily on the competence of the arguments presented, which isn’t strongly related to the sincerity of the arguer.
This argument misses the point. The reason to avoid arguing with hostile arguers is not that it is impossible to learn anything from such people (although the expected information value is likely to be low). It is because doing so is dangerous or costly on a psychological, physical or economic level.
Of course if you enjoy arguing with hostile people or think it is potentially useful practice then go ahead. In much the same way if you think getting into physical fights will teach you self defence skills then go ahead and insult drunk guys at the bar till they take a swing at you.
My god, you’re a pompous ass. You read someone’s mind and accuse them of making a “dominance attempt” because you don’t like the writing style.
“You should consider” seems simply to have been an attempt to be polite. Inept, perhaps, but hardly “condescending.”
You have developed a plethora of self-protective rationalizations, hostile arguer, clever arguer, anything but your own inability to defend your positions in actual debate.
And then, so what if it were condescending? Your own dominance strivings (and chronic injustice collecting) keep you from engaging in argument honestly.
I have no horse in this race, but I note that right after saying this,
You read someone’s mind and accuse them of making a “dominance attempt” because you don’t like the writing style.
you proceed to say this, doing the exact same thing you condemn wedrifid for doing:
You have developed a plethora of self-protective rationalizations, hostile arguer, clever arguer, anything but your own inability to defend your positions in actual debate… Your own dominance strivings (and chronic injustice collecting) keep you from engaging in argument honestly.
No successful irony; only your special pleading. I didn’t criticize Werdifred for mind reading, which all humans are fully capable of. I criticized him for mind reading based on his mere dislike of the manner of expression employed by common_law.
What is truly ironic is indeed that Werdifred (Weird Fred?) is the epitome of what the lead essay condemns: arguing to establish personal dominance. Isn’t that plainly obvious? Can you honestly deny it, or is an actual example beyond the pale?
Let me take the opportunity to disagree with common_law on one important point. There’s nothing necessarily better about the faux-naive arguer than the “clever arguer.” Sometimes arguing a position tendentiously is a good way to test it. Take one example. Relative to E.Y., Robin Hanson is a “clever arguer.” But Hanson is the superior intellectual and is ultimately more intellectually honest.
I criticized him for mind reading based on his mere dislike of the manner of expression employed by common_law.
And how do you know he/she did that? For that matter, how do I know you’re not just leveling false accusations at him/her right now based on your dislike of the manner of expression he/she employed? Your “mind-reading” is, if anything, far worse than anything wedrifid did, because not only are you criticizing someone’s actions based on insufficient evidence, you also purport to know that person’s motivations. Have you heard of the fundamental question of rationality? “What do you think you know, and why do you think you know it?” I suggest you apply it here.
What is truly ironic is indeed that Werdifred (Weird Fred?) is the epitome of what the lead essay condemns: arguing to establish personal dominance.
Again, you are drawing highly uncharitable conclusions based on little to no evidence. In addition, you misspelled wedrifid’s username as “Werdifred”, and I’m not sure if you did so intentionally in order to call him/her “Weird Fred”. I’m not sure what to call this, honestly; “ad hominem” might actually be too nice of a term. This is playground-level name-calling.
Finally, I have no idea what you mean by your last paragraph. From reading common_law’s comment, he/she does not appear to be making any claims about there being something “necessarily better about the faux-naive arguer than the ‘clever arguer’”. Bringing Eliezer and Robin into this seems entirely irrelevant, and moreover, your assertions about them are entirely unsupported, true or not. I feel no need to argue this point.
This will be my last reply to you on this thread, unfortunately. You have not yet demonstrated that you are capable of carrying on clear, constructive conversation; your first action was to call wedrifid, an esteemed long-time member of LW, a “pompous ass”, and it only got worse from there. At this stage I see no further benefit to carrying on this conversation.
I was sarcastic, but you were sarcastic first. At least my sarcasm had ideas within it, yours was a disdainful contradiction that didn’t supply anyone with new information.
I think you’re overreacting to common_law’s choice of language. OP will speak for themself if they felt offended or domineered, I’m sure.
The reason to avoid arguing with hostile arguers is not that it is impossible to learn anything from such people (although the expected information value is likely to be low). It is because doing so is dangerous or costly on a psychological, physical or economic level.
I disagree with you about expected information value. Intelligent people are often irrational, I’d even say the majority of intelligent people are irrational. There are plenty of dumb irrational people as well, but it’d be quite uncharitable to assume that arguments with them are what’s being defended.
I also disagree that arguments with irrational people are dangerous, psychologically or physically costly, or economically expensive. Why do you think that this is true? I think that even arguments had in person don’t typically end in violence, and that arguments online practically never do. I don’t see how arguments cost money either, except in the same opportunity cost sense that anything does—but people aren’t optimal utilitarians, so this is a pretty lame criticism. I agree that arguing with irrational people can be psychologically unhealthy, but don’t see any reason to think that’s the case in the majority of situations.
Of course if you enjoy arguing with hostile people or think it is potentially useful practice then go ahead. In much the same way if you think getting into physical fights will teach you self defence skills then go ahead and insult drunk guys at the bar till they take a swing at you.
Nobody here is advocating intentionally getting embroiled in all imaginable possible arguments, that would indeed be as horrible as trying to fight drunks to learn self-defense. It’s assumed that discrimination is still applied when deciding whether or not to enter a conversation. Your analogy is very biased.
I was sarcastic, but you were sarcastic first. At least my comment had ideas within it, yours was a contradiction that didn’t supply any helpful information to anyone. It was just mean.
I think you’re overreacting to common_law’s choice of language. OP will speak for themself if they felt offended or domineered, I’m sure.
The reason to avoid arguing with hostile arguers is not that it is impossible to learn anything from such people (although the expected information value is likely to be low). It is because doing so is dangerous or costly on a psychological, physical or economic level.
I disagree with you about expected information value. Intelligent people are often irrational, I’d even say the majority of intelligent people are irrational. There are plenty of dumb irrational people as well, but it’d be quite uncharitable to assume that arguments with them are what’s being defended.
I also disagree that arguments with irrational people are dangerous, psychologically or physically costly, or economically expensive. Why do you think that this is true?
I think that even arguments had in person don’t typically end in violence, and that arguments online practically never do.
I don’t see how arguments generally cost anyone money either, except in the same opportunity cost sense that anything does—but people aren’t optimal utilitarians, so this is a pretty lame criticism.
I agree that arguing with irrational people can be psychologically unhealthy, but don’t see any reason to think that’s the case in the majority of situations.
There are imaginable arguments with irrational people that would end in violence, loss of money, or loss of sanity, sure. But obviously those aren’t common consequences.
Of course if you enjoy arguing with hostile people or think it is potentially useful practice then go ahead. In much the same way if you think getting into physical fights will teach you self defence skills then go ahead and insult drunk guys at the bar till they take a swing at you.
Nobody here is advocating intentionally getting embroiled in all imaginable possible arguments, that would indeed be a terrible idea. It’s assumed that discrimination is still applied when deciding whether or not to enter a conversation. Your analogy is very biased because it overlooks this. Your above arguments have the same flaw. You’ve evaluating common_law’s idea by pretending the idea would be implemented by someone without any judgement whatsoever, which is unfair.
I was not sarcastic. I was entirely straightforward and sincere.
I am afraid your conversation practices make me unable to engage with you further (unless, obviously, I perceive others to be negatively impacted by your words.)
I was not sarcastic. I was entirely straightforward and sincere.
You were straightforward in the most mocking and least helpful way possible, maybe.
Earlier, you claimed your intention was to lend moral support to the OP against common_law’s rudeness. But now, you are claiming sincerity and straightforwardness in your reply to common law that simply contradicted what he said. Those things don’t fit together. People who are being straightforward don’t make sincere comments to one person for the purpose of communicating something else to another. Nor do they make assertions without providing explanations for their reasoning process. Being vague and ambiguous about your ideas is the opposite of being straightforward, actually. A straightforward approach would have been to say that you thought his choice of language was inappropriate, or for you to advance right away the arguments against his view that you ended up making later on. Snarkiness is not sincerity, equivocation is not straightforwardness.
I am afraid your conversation practices make me unable to engage with you further
You were willing to engage with me after I said something “inexcusably obnoxious” and sarcastic, but you draw the line at a well reasoned collection of counterarguments? Pull the other one.
You were willing to engage with me after I said something “inexcusably obnoxious” and sarcastic, but you draw the line at a well reasoned collection of counterarguments? Pull the other one.
For those curious, I stopped engaging after the secondoffense—the words you wrote after what I quoted may be reasonable but I did not and will not read them. This is has been my consistent policy for the last year and my life has been better for it. I recommend it for all those who, like myself, find the temptation to engage in toxic internet argument hard to resist.
It works even better in forums that do not lack the block feature. I was unable to avoid peripheral exposure to the parent comment when I was drawn to the thread to thank Markus.
You should question your unstated but fundamental premise: one should avoid arguments with “hostile arguers.”
A person who argues to convince rather than to understand harms himself, but from his interlocutor’s standpoint, dealing with his arguments can be just as challenging and enlightening as arguing with someone more “intellectually honest.”
Whether an argument is worthwhile depends primarily on the competence of the arguments presented, which isn’t strongly related to the sincerity of the arguer.
Well, as the post is mainly dealing with hostile arguers that have ultimate power over you, that seems justified. Play around with looking for “challenging and enlightening” arguments when it’s not so dangerous.
The post arrives at its conclusions by way of an example involving ultimate power. But it’s conclusions go far beyond:
“Never try to defend a proposition against a hostile arguer.[2] They do not care.”
LW denizens have turned into a clique fearful a hostile word will damage their fragile identities. They might as well be feminists.
Another reason one might want to engage with a “hostile arguer” is to convince a third party—any opponent in a live debate before an audience is almost certain to act as a hostile arguer.
I just questioned that premise. It seems sound.
Wow, thank God you’ve settled this question for us with your supreme grasp of rationality. I’m completely convinced by the power of your reputation to ignore all the arguments common_law made, you’ve been very helpful!
Apart from the inexcusably obnoxious presentation the point hidden behind your sarcasm suggests you misunderstand the context.
Stating arguments in favour of arguing with hostile arguers is one thing. “You should question your unstated but fundamental premise” is far more than that. It uses a condescending normative dominance attempt to imply that the poster must not have ‘questioned’ or thought about a central part of the point because, presumably, if they had ‘questioned’ that they would have ended up agreeing with common_law instead.
In my judgement the opening poster deserves some moral support and protection against that kind of sniping. I chose (largely out of politeness) to express simple agreement with the poster, rather than a more aggressive and detailed rejection of common_law.
Since you (passive aggressively) asked:
This argument misses the point. The reason to avoid arguing with hostile arguers is not that it is impossible to learn anything from such people (although the expected information value is likely to be low). It is because doing so is dangerous or costly on a psychological, physical or economic level.
Of course if you enjoy arguing with hostile people or think it is potentially useful practice then go ahead. In much the same way if you think getting into physical fights will teach you self defence skills then go ahead and insult drunk guys at the bar till they take a swing at you.
That, or unskilled use of language by someone who lacks better arguing habits. Either way, yeah, worth discouraging.
Can’t imagine who’d have guessed your exact intention just based on your initial response, though.
You are probably right and I am responsible for managing the predictable response to my words. Thankyou for the feedback.
My god, you’re a pompous ass. You read someone’s mind and accuse them of making a “dominance attempt” because you don’t like the writing style.
“You should consider” seems simply to have been an attempt to be polite. Inept, perhaps, but hardly “condescending.”
You have developed a plethora of self-protective rationalizations, hostile arguer, clever arguer, anything but your own inability to defend your positions in actual debate.
And then, so what if it were condescending? Your own dominance strivings (and chronic injustice collecting) keep you from engaging in argument honestly.
I have no horse in this race, but I note that right after saying this,
you proceed to say this, doing the exact same thing you condemn wedrifid for doing:
Irony much?
No successful irony; only your special pleading. I didn’t criticize Werdifred for mind reading, which all humans are fully capable of. I criticized him for mind reading based on his mere dislike of the manner of expression employed by common_law.
What is truly ironic is indeed that Werdifred (Weird Fred?) is the epitome of what the lead essay condemns: arguing to establish personal dominance. Isn’t that plainly obvious? Can you honestly deny it, or is an actual example beyond the pale?
Let me take the opportunity to disagree with common_law on one important point. There’s nothing necessarily better about the faux-naive arguer than the “clever arguer.” Sometimes arguing a position tendentiously is a good way to test it. Take one example. Relative to E.Y., Robin Hanson is a “clever arguer.” But Hanson is the superior intellectual and is ultimately more intellectually honest.
And how do you know he/she did that? For that matter, how do I know you’re not just leveling false accusations at him/her right now based on your dislike of the manner of expression he/she employed? Your “mind-reading” is, if anything, far worse than anything wedrifid did, because not only are you criticizing someone’s actions based on insufficient evidence, you also purport to know that person’s motivations. Have you heard of the fundamental question of rationality? “What do you think you know, and why do you think you know it?” I suggest you apply it here.
Again, you are drawing highly uncharitable conclusions based on little to no evidence. In addition, you misspelled wedrifid’s username as “Werdifred”, and I’m not sure if you did so intentionally in order to call him/her “Weird Fred”. I’m not sure what to call this, honestly; “ad hominem” might actually be too nice of a term. This is playground-level name-calling.
Finally, I have no idea what you mean by your last paragraph. From reading common_law’s comment, he/she does not appear to be making any claims about there being something “necessarily better about the faux-naive arguer than the ‘clever arguer’”. Bringing Eliezer and Robin into this seems entirely irrelevant, and moreover, your assertions about them are entirely unsupported, true or not. I feel no need to argue this point.
This will be my last reply to you on this thread, unfortunately. You have not yet demonstrated that you are capable of carrying on clear, constructive conversation; your first action was to call wedrifid, an esteemed long-time member of LW, a “pompous ass”, and it only got worse from there. At this stage I see no further benefit to carrying on this conversation.
I was sarcastic, but you were sarcastic first. At least my sarcasm had ideas within it, yours was a disdainful contradiction that didn’t supply anyone with new information.
I think you’re overreacting to common_law’s choice of language. OP will speak for themself if they felt offended or domineered, I’m sure.
I disagree with you about expected information value. Intelligent people are often irrational, I’d even say the majority of intelligent people are irrational. There are plenty of dumb irrational people as well, but it’d be quite uncharitable to assume that arguments with them are what’s being defended.
I also disagree that arguments with irrational people are dangerous, psychologically or physically costly, or economically expensive. Why do you think that this is true? I think that even arguments had in person don’t typically end in violence, and that arguments online practically never do. I don’t see how arguments cost money either, except in the same opportunity cost sense that anything does—but people aren’t optimal utilitarians, so this is a pretty lame criticism. I agree that arguing with irrational people can be psychologically unhealthy, but don’t see any reason to think that’s the case in the majority of situations.
Nobody here is advocating intentionally getting embroiled in all imaginable possible arguments, that would indeed be as horrible as trying to fight drunks to learn self-defense. It’s assumed that discrimination is still applied when deciding whether or not to enter a conversation. Your analogy is very biased.
I was sarcastic, but you were sarcastic first. At least my comment had ideas within it, yours was a contradiction that didn’t supply any helpful information to anyone. It was just mean.
I think you’re overreacting to common_law’s choice of language. OP will speak for themself if they felt offended or domineered, I’m sure.
I disagree with you about expected information value. Intelligent people are often irrational, I’d even say the majority of intelligent people are irrational. There are plenty of dumb irrational people as well, but it’d be quite uncharitable to assume that arguments with them are what’s being defended.
I also disagree that arguments with irrational people are dangerous, psychologically or physically costly, or economically expensive. Why do you think that this is true?
I think that even arguments had in person don’t typically end in violence, and that arguments online practically never do.
I don’t see how arguments generally cost anyone money either, except in the same opportunity cost sense that anything does—but people aren’t optimal utilitarians, so this is a pretty lame criticism.
I agree that arguing with irrational people can be psychologically unhealthy, but don’t see any reason to think that’s the case in the majority of situations.
There are imaginable arguments with irrational people that would end in violence, loss of money, or loss of sanity, sure. But obviously those aren’t common consequences.
Nobody here is advocating intentionally getting embroiled in all imaginable possible arguments, that would indeed be a terrible idea. It’s assumed that discrimination is still applied when deciding whether or not to enter a conversation. Your analogy is very biased because it overlooks this. Your above arguments have the same flaw. You’ve evaluating common_law’s idea by pretending the idea would be implemented by someone without any judgement whatsoever, which is unfair.
I was not sarcastic. I was entirely straightforward and sincere.
I am afraid your conversation practices make me unable to engage with you further (unless, obviously, I perceive others to be negatively impacted by your words.)
You were straightforward in the most mocking and least helpful way possible, maybe.
Earlier, you claimed your intention was to lend moral support to the OP against common_law’s rudeness. But now, you are claiming sincerity and straightforwardness in your reply to common law that simply contradicted what he said. Those things don’t fit together. People who are being straightforward don’t make sincere comments to one person for the purpose of communicating something else to another. Nor do they make assertions without providing explanations for their reasoning process. Being vague and ambiguous about your ideas is the opposite of being straightforward, actually. A straightforward approach would have been to say that you thought his choice of language was inappropriate, or for you to advance right away the arguments against his view that you ended up making later on. Snarkiness is not sincerity, equivocation is not straightforwardness.
You were willing to engage with me after I said something “inexcusably obnoxious” and sarcastic, but you draw the line at a well reasoned collection of counterarguments? Pull the other one.
For those curious, I stopped engaging after the second offense—the words you wrote after what I quoted may be reasonable but I did not and will not read them. This is has been my consistent policy for the last year and my life has been better for it. I recommend it for all those who, like myself, find the temptation to engage in toxic internet argument hard to resist.
It works even better in forums that do not lack the block feature. I was unable to avoid peripheral exposure to the parent comment when I was drawn to the thread to thank Markus.