Interesting idea (although this doesn’t strike me as the kind of post that polarizes). Nothing you wrote came across as manipulative although it can clearly be interpreted that way. The principle of charity is by itself reason enough to give the the “manipulative middle” the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, you announced what you were up to ahead of time so I can’t be certain how I would have reacted if you hadn’t.
I happily admit that I get really annoyed when people maliciously manipulate me. When people manipulate me with good intentions I don’t get upset.
Although I realize that the questions you asked are rhetorical they are also questions I should be happy to answer when taken at face value.
Why not ask them at the point when they’re unhappy? Because at that point they’re going to be least receptive to my arguments. Why not ask them later? It’s the kind of subject that is difficult to bring up without coming across as judgmental/accusatory. Why ask LessWrong? Because my own speculations are unlikely to be good (I shouldn’t assume other people think like me) but personalities fall into rough categories and probably some in the the LessWrong community are familiar with the behavior.
I have to disagree with your conclusion though: why gather evidence from the source? Well, in the best case I end up extrapolating from 3 data points and in the worst case I end up alienating people unnecessarily. I want to gather evidence from the source, but the act clearly has negative expectation! Rationality is not an excuse for self-destructive behavior. So given my options I’d much rather learn from the experience of others.
Why not ask them at the point when they’re unhappy? Because at that point they’re going to be least receptive to my arguments.
Wait, this doesn’t follow. You’re not trying to get them to accept your argument, when you ask. You’re trying to understand why they’re angry or threatened.
Interesting idea (although this doesn’t strike me as the kind of post that polarizes). Nothing you wrote came across as manipulative although it can clearly be interpreted that way. The principle of charity is by itself reason enough to give the the “manipulative middle” the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, you announced what you were up to ahead of time so I can’t be certain how I would have reacted if you hadn’t.
I happily admit that I get really annoyed when people maliciously manipulate me. When people manipulate me with good intentions I don’t get upset.
Although I realize that the questions you asked are rhetorical they are also questions I should be happy to answer when taken at face value.
Why not ask them at the point when they’re unhappy? Because at that point they’re going to be least receptive to my arguments. Why not ask them later? It’s the kind of subject that is difficult to bring up without coming across as judgmental/accusatory. Why ask LessWrong? Because my own speculations are unlikely to be good (I shouldn’t assume other people think like me) but personalities fall into rough categories and probably some in the the LessWrong community are familiar with the behavior.
I have to disagree with your conclusion though: why gather evidence from the source? Well, in the best case I end up extrapolating from 3 data points and in the worst case I end up alienating people unnecessarily. I want to gather evidence from the source, but the act clearly has negative expectation! Rationality is not an excuse for self-destructive behavior. So given my options I’d much rather learn from the experience of others.
Wait, this doesn’t follow. You’re not trying to get them to accept your argument, when you ask. You’re trying to understand why they’re angry or threatened.