You’re entitled to your opinion as well as to exercise your mod powers as you see fit.
I would note that Duncan remains the only individual to directly engage with the object-level content of the paragraph in question, beyond to comment on whether they approve or disapprove of it or to (accurately) characterize it as psychologizing. Duncan’s clearly angry about it, and while I’m insensitive enough to have (re)posted the original, I’m not insensitive enough to try and draw them into further discussion on the matter since it appears that shutting off discussion is their preferred strategy in this situation.
Questions I think are relevant to directly engaging the object-level content include:
When is psychologizing appropriate or inappropriate in general?
What makes it appropriate or inappropriate in this case?
Setting aside questions of appropriateness, which can include concerns about hurt feelings and community health, is the connection I was drawing between the Obligated to Respond post and the “800 pound gorilla” comment relevant, accurate, or illuminating?
These are some of the questions I’m interested in discussing with respect to this topic.
Setting aside questions of appropriateness, which can include concerns about hurt feelings and community health, is the connection I was drawing between the Obligated to Respond post and the “800 pound gorilla” comment relevant, accurate, or illuminating?
No. The “if —> then” of the comment is valid, in that if your characterization were at all reasonable, then yes, that would in fact be relevant contextual information for the reader, just as it’s important for, I dunno, readers of various books on polyamory to know that the authors have failed marriages and abuse accusations.
But the “if” doesn’t hold, making the leap to the “then” moot. And although the paragraph starts with a gesture in the direction of split-and-commit (“I would posit that if you mean this literally”) it does not proceed to act as if both possibilities are live; it clearly focuses on the one possibility that it presupposes is true.
You’re entitled to your opinion as well as to exercise your mod powers as you see fit.
I would note that Duncan remains the only individual to directly engage with the object-level content of the paragraph in question, beyond to comment on whether they approve or disapprove of it or to (accurately) characterize it as psychologizing. Duncan’s clearly angry about it, and while I’m insensitive enough to have (re)posted the original, I’m not insensitive enough to try and draw them into further discussion on the matter since it appears that shutting off discussion is their preferred strategy in this situation.
Questions I think are relevant to directly engaging the object-level content include:
When is psychologizing appropriate or inappropriate in general?
What makes it appropriate or inappropriate in this case?
Setting aside questions of appropriateness, which can include concerns about hurt feelings and community health, is the connection I was drawing between the Obligated to Respond post and the “800 pound gorilla” comment relevant, accurate, or illuminating?
These are some of the questions I’m interested in discussing with respect to this topic.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XPv4sYrKnPzeJASuk/basics-of-rationalist-discourse-1#10__Hold_yourself_to_the_absolute_highest_standard_when_directly_modeling_or_assessing_others__internal_states__values__and_thought_processes_
No. The “if —> then” of the comment is valid, in that if your characterization were at all reasonable, then yes, that would in fact be relevant contextual information for the reader, just as it’s important for, I dunno, readers of various books on polyamory to know that the authors have failed marriages and abuse accusations.
But the “if” doesn’t hold, making the leap to the “then” moot. And although the paragraph starts with a gesture in the direction of split-and-commit (“I would posit that if you mean this literally”) it does not proceed to act as if both possibilities are live; it clearly focuses on the one possibility that it presupposes is true.