For now all I can think of is to note that some users, like Wei Dai, ask lots of pointed and clarifying questions and never provoke in me the same kind of frustration that many of Said’s comments do.
Reflecting on this, I think there are a few reasons for this:
Generally being less confident that I’m right and my interlocutor is wrong, or that when I don’t understand something it’s because the writing itself is confused vs that I’m not smart enough or lack enough background to understand it.
Having less interest in commenting on posts that I’m highly skeptical about, like ones that are positive on Circling or religion, thus avoiding getting into conflicts with their authors.
When I do write pointed/skeptical comments, I’m more mindful of my own potential bias to be overconfident or my own status-seeking tendencies, and also because I have a more conflict-avoiding personality, I intentionally “tone down” my skepticism/hostility/derision, or leave threads instead of trying to win every argument.
So I think I understand and can sympathize with those who find Said’s style too abrasive/aversive, but also think it’s probably good to have one or two people like him around, 1. to criticize posts that I think should be criticized but people more like me have less interest in directly engaging with, and 2. holding open one end of the Overton Window so that people in the community know that occasional harsh criticism should be expected and tolerated (but possibly ignored/downvoted), so that when I (and others like me who are a bit more attuned to social reality and other people’s feelings) try to criticize something, we don’t feel even more pressure to avoid offending the other person.
(Tagging @habryka since this might be relevant to his decision to ban Said or not.)
On the object-level topic of Said Achmiz, I have said all I care about, and I shall say no more. But there are deeper philosophical disagreements underlying the object level, which you correctly point to in your second-to-last paragraph. In fact, reading point number 2 in that paragraph reminded me of this classic and critical excerpt of Eliezer’s writing in the Preface to the new Sequences:
I thought, and still do think, that there is an unfortunate problem wherein treating ideas courteously is processed by many people on some level as “Nothing bad will happen to me if I say I believe this; I won’t lose status if I say I believe in homeopathy,” and that derisive laughter by comedians can help people wake up from the dream.
I believe that saying someone’s argument or belief is Obvious Nonsense and can be dismissed because it’s already been conclusively addressed in a dozen posts in the Sequences, and using these exact words to say it,[1] seems to me like an absolutely pro-social and frankly necessary part of maintaining epistemic hygiene in a truth-seeking community.
As opposed to, as a hopefully-relevant example, the EA Forum college-campus-style “we are all friends and you are super smart and I will do anything to avoid offending you and I will acknowledge all your emotions as valid, while trying my hardest to find an angle from which our disagreement disappears instead of addressing any of your actual points”
Reflecting on this, I think there are a few reasons for this:
Generally being less confident that I’m right and my interlocutor is wrong, or that when I don’t understand something it’s because the writing itself is confused vs that I’m not smart enough or lack enough background to understand it.
Having less interest in commenting on posts that I’m highly skeptical about, like ones that are positive on Circling or religion, thus avoiding getting into conflicts with their authors.
When I do write pointed/skeptical comments, I’m more mindful of my own potential bias to be overconfident or my own status-seeking tendencies, and also because I have a more conflict-avoiding personality, I intentionally “tone down” my skepticism/hostility/derision, or leave threads instead of trying to win every argument.
So I think I understand and can sympathize with those who find Said’s style too abrasive/aversive, but also think it’s probably good to have one or two people like him around, 1. to criticize posts that I think should be criticized but people more like me have less interest in directly engaging with, and 2. holding open one end of the Overton Window so that people in the community know that occasional harsh criticism should be expected and tolerated (but possibly ignored/downvoted), so that when I (and others like me who are a bit more attuned to social reality and other people’s feelings) try to criticize something, we don’t feel even more pressure to avoid offending the other person.
(Tagging @habryka since this might be relevant to his decision to ban Said or not.)
On the object-level topic of Said Achmiz, I have said all I care about, and I shall say no more. But there are deeper philosophical disagreements underlying the object level, which you correctly point to in your second-to-last paragraph. In fact, reading point number 2 in that paragraph reminded me of this classic and critical excerpt of Eliezer’s writing in the Preface to the new Sequences:
I believe that saying someone’s argument or belief is Obvious Nonsense and can be dismissed because it’s already been conclusively addressed in a dozen posts in the Sequences, and using these exact words to say it,[1] seems to me like an absolutely pro-social and frankly necessary part of maintaining epistemic hygiene in a truth-seeking community.
As opposed to, as a hopefully-relevant example, the EA Forum college-campus-style “we are all friends and you are super smart and I will do anything to avoid offending you and I will acknowledge all your emotions as valid, while trying my hardest to find an angle from which our disagreement disappears instead of addressing any of your actual points”
(I agree with all this and think this is a value that Said provides.)