I think we are talking at cross purposes here. And it seems I may have misunderstood part of the comments which led to that “epic rationality fail” line, in which case I apologize.
This line of yours first led me to see that we really are talking about two different things:
It is not an epic failure of e-rationality to not accept a particular social challenge.
I am puzzled over as to why you would want to consider this a “social challenge”. The opening post was formulated in a reasonable tone, asking reasonable and fully warranted questions. I had automatically assumed that any aspiring rationalist would, well, treat such as post like any other post by someone else. I certainly hadn’t assumed that people would instead prefer to interpret it as a maneuver in some elaborate social battle, and I am utterly puzzled over why anyone would want to take it that way. Not only does that run a major risk of misinterpretation in case the person in question actually meant what they said in the post, it’s also stooping down to their level and making things worse in case they did intend it as a social attack.
It seems my assertion was ambiguous. I don’t mean “need to answer any possible question”. I insist that nobody is required to answer any question whatsoever.
Okay, it appears I was ambiguous as well. I didn’t mean that anyone would be required to answer any question, either. The tone I got from the comments was something along the lines of “this is an important question, and I do find it interesting and worthy enough to discuss and consider, but now that you have brought it up, I’ll push it out of my mind or at least delay discussion of it later on”.
Does this mean people find this an important topic and would like to discuss it, but will now forever avoid the question? That would indeed be a rationality fail. Does it mean that some poster of a higher status should reword the same questions in his own words, and post them in the open thread / as his own top-level post, and then it would be acceptable to discuss? That just seems petty and pointless, when it could just as well be discussed here.
Certainly there’s no requirement on anybody to answer any questions if they don’t feel like it. But, how should I put this… it’s certainly a worrying sign if they can be deflected from a question they’d otherwise consider, simply because the wrong person also happens to ask it.
I am not ignoring this but I will not engage fully with all of it because to do so effectively would require us to write several posts worth of background to even be using the same meaning for words.
Does this mean people find this an important topic and would like to discuss it, but will now forever avoid the question? That would indeed be a rationality fail.
I agree, and rather hope not.
Certainly there’s no requirement on anybody to answer any questions if they don’t feel like it. But, how should I put this… it’s certainly a worrying sign if they can be deflected from a question they’d otherwise consider, simply because the wrong person also happens to ask it.
I would not be quite as worried and would perhaps frame it slightly differently. I may share an underlying concern with maintaining an acceptable ‘bullshit to content’ ratio. Things like ignoring people or arguments can sometimes fall into that bullshit category and oft times are a concern to me. I think I have a somewhat different conception than you when it comes to “times when ignoring stuff is undesirable”.
I think we are talking at cross purposes here. And it seems I may have misunderstood part of the comments which led to that “epic rationality fail” line, in which case I apologize.
This line of yours first led me to see that we really are talking about two different things:
I am puzzled over as to why you would want to consider this a “social challenge”. The opening post was formulated in a reasonable tone, asking reasonable and fully warranted questions. I had automatically assumed that any aspiring rationalist would, well, treat such as post like any other post by someone else. I certainly hadn’t assumed that people would instead prefer to interpret it as a maneuver in some elaborate social battle, and I am utterly puzzled over why anyone would want to take it that way. Not only does that run a major risk of misinterpretation in case the person in question actually meant what they said in the post, it’s also stooping down to their level and making things worse in case they did intend it as a social attack.
Okay, it appears I was ambiguous as well. I didn’t mean that anyone would be required to answer any question, either. The tone I got from the comments was something along the lines of “this is an important question, and I do find it interesting and worthy enough to discuss and consider, but now that you have brought it up, I’ll push it out of my mind or at least delay discussion of it later on”.
Does this mean people find this an important topic and would like to discuss it, but will now forever avoid the question? That would indeed be a rationality fail. Does it mean that some poster of a higher status should reword the same questions in his own words, and post them in the open thread / as his own top-level post, and then it would be acceptable to discuss? That just seems petty and pointless, when it could just as well be discussed here.
Certainly there’s no requirement on anybody to answer any questions if they don’t feel like it. But, how should I put this… it’s certainly a worrying sign if they can be deflected from a question they’d otherwise consider, simply because the wrong person also happens to ask it.
I am not ignoring this but I will not engage fully with all of it because to do so effectively would require us to write several posts worth of background to even be using the same meaning for words.
I agree, and rather hope not.
I would not be quite as worried and would perhaps frame it slightly differently. I may share an underlying concern with maintaining an acceptable ‘bullshit to content’ ratio. Things like ignoring people or arguments can sometimes fall into that bullshit category and oft times are a concern to me. I think I have a somewhat different conception than you when it comes to “times when ignoring stuff is undesirable”.