An university professor is hardly low status, but even claiming that such behavior is typical of low status men is defamatory if not backed by reliable statistics.
Do you see what happened there? I gave my reading of the original submission. You blithely assumed the submission said something else (almost the opposite). Either that, or you decided to reply with a non sequitur.
This is more evidence of badly corrupted hardware and software.
Quite possibly. You started out by criticizing claims which appear nowhere in the text (“that this behavior is normal among males”—also “justify committing abuse”). At the end of that comment you draw the focus back to the hastily proposed hypothesis that ‘creepiness’ has to do with perceptions of status—though submission B suggests,
identification of creepiness is a brain making predictions about someone’s brain …(and about) actions unpleasant or of low utility to the target
and submission A talks about a relatively high-status man taking such actions. I would go so far as to say that A called him “normal” in part to break this foolish association in your mind.
You failed to steel-man or even try to understand some fairly plain statements by a person/people with different background information. Something has gone wrong with your thinking. In the future, you should pause for various checks when you find yourself in similar situations—“even if you are clearly right,” to paraphrase Eliezer.
An university professor is hardly low status, but even claiming that such behavior is typical of low status men is defamatory if not backed by reliable statistics.
Do you see what happened there? I gave my reading of the original submission. You blithely assumed the submission said something else (almost the opposite). Either that, or you decided to reply with a non sequitur.
This is more evidence of badly corrupted hardware and software.
Then you may consider expressing yourself in a less cryptic way
What?
Quite possibly. You started out by criticizing claims which appear nowhere in the text (“that this behavior is normal among males”—also “justify committing abuse”). At the end of that comment you draw the focus back to the hastily proposed hypothesis that ‘creepiness’ has to do with perceptions of status—though submission B suggests,
and submission A talks about a relatively high-status man taking such actions. I would go so far as to say that A called him “normal” in part to break this foolish association in your mind.
You failed to steel-man or even try to understand some fairly plain statements by a person/people with different background information. Something has gone wrong with your thinking. In the future, you should pause for various checks when you find yourself in similar situations—“even if you are clearly right,” to paraphrase Eliezer.