Actually, I would really like it if Said left comments that were just critical of things and pointed out where he thought the author was wrong, but to do that requires actually engaging with the content and the author to understand their intent (because clear communication, especially about non-settled topics, is hard). There’s something subtle about Said’s style of commenting that is hard for me to pin down that makes it unhelpfully adversarial in a way that I’m sure some people like but I find incredibly frustrating.
For example, I often feel like Said uses a rhetorical technique of smashing the applause button by referencing something in the Sequences as if that was the end of the argument, when at times the thing being argued is a claim made in the Sequences.
This is frustrating as an author who is trying to explore an idea or try to share advice because it’s not real engagement: it reads like trying to shut down the conversation to score points, and it’s all the more frustrating because he hit the applause button so it gets a lot of upvotes.
It’s also frustrating in that he never crosses a bright line that would make me say “this is totally unacceptable”. It feels to me like someone playing a game of “I’m not touching you” so that it’s never possible to pin down what’s so wrong. But the pattern is clear, especially given that lots of other people tell me I’m wrong and I have no similar reaction to what they have to say.
I don’t know what Said’s motivations are. I’d like to think he’s simply motivated to try to argue for what he believes to be the truth as hard as possible in the best way he knows how. For me, though, that best is not good enough for the kind of conversations I’d like to have on my posts or anywhere on LessWrong, which is why I finally decided to take this drastic action.
(As I hope is clear, this is specifically about Said and not criticism in general. He’s the only person I’ve banned, and I regularly engage with all critics of my posts and comments, even those who seem to be arguing in bad faith, because I’d rather give them the benefit for the doubt to start. I see Less Wrong as about collaborative truth seeking, and Said is, in my estimation, an impediment to that project so long as he continues to engage in the style of commenting that he does.)
Actually, I would really like it if Said left comments that were just critical of things and pointed out where he thought the author was wrong, but to do that requires actually engaging with the content and the author to understand their intent (because clear communication, especially about non-settled topics, is hard)
I’m flagging this as the critical crux that explains the majority (but not the entirety) of the disagreement between us.
If I believed Said was consistently engaging in distortions of clear authorial intent by failing to do due diligence and to engage sufficiently, then I probably would indeed have significantly different views on the propriety of his comments on this site.
There’s something subtle about Said’s style of commenting that is hard for me to pin down that makes it unhelpfully adversarial in a way that I’m sure some people like but I find incredibly frustrating.
“Subtle”! No, it’s actually not subtle at all. It’s a very simple dynamic: you write something that is wrong and/or nonsensical; I point this out; you do not like this being pointed out. Well, who does? It’s embarrassing! Or, in other words:
Our innate vanity, which is particularly sensitive in reference to our intellectual powers, will not suffer us to allow that our first position was wrong and our adversary’s right.
Schopenhauer also suggests a sure-fire remedy, to prevent such unpleasant scenarios:
The way out of this difficulty would be simply to take the trouble always to form a correct judgment.
Hmm. Yeah, that’s a tough row to hoe.
I don’t know about you, but to me, “frank discussion, out of which correct judgments emerge” seems a lot easier and more reliable than “always be correct, right from the start”. Of course, if you banish from your comment sections anyone who tells you that you’re wrong, then you only have the harder option available to you. I don’t envy you in that case.
There’s little chance we will agree on anything here or convince each other. I’m done with this for now. If I see signs you are arguing in good faith I will unban you, but until then I wish you well.
Actually, I would really like it if Said left comments that were just critical of things and pointed out where he thought the author was wrong, but to do that requires actually engaging with the content and the author to understand their intent (because clear communication, especially about non-settled topics, is hard). There’s something subtle about Said’s style of commenting that is hard for me to pin down that makes it unhelpfully adversarial in a way that I’m sure some people like but I find incredibly frustrating.
For example, I often feel like Said uses a rhetorical technique of smashing the applause button by referencing something in the Sequences as if that was the end of the argument, when at times the thing being argued is a claim made in the Sequences.
This is frustrating as an author who is trying to explore an idea or try to share advice because it’s not real engagement: it reads like trying to shut down the conversation to score points, and it’s all the more frustrating because he hit the applause button so it gets a lot of upvotes.
It’s also frustrating in that he never crosses a bright line that would make me say “this is totally unacceptable”. It feels to me like someone playing a game of “I’m not touching you” so that it’s never possible to pin down what’s so wrong. But the pattern is clear, especially given that lots of other people tell me I’m wrong and I have no similar reaction to what they have to say.
I don’t know what Said’s motivations are. I’d like to think he’s simply motivated to try to argue for what he believes to be the truth as hard as possible in the best way he knows how. For me, though, that best is not good enough for the kind of conversations I’d like to have on my posts or anywhere on LessWrong, which is why I finally decided to take this drastic action.
(As I hope is clear, this is specifically about Said and not criticism in general. He’s the only person I’ve banned, and I regularly engage with all critics of my posts and comments, even those who seem to be arguing in bad faith, because I’d rather give them the benefit for the doubt to start. I see Less Wrong as about collaborative truth seeking, and Said is, in my estimation, an impediment to that project so long as he continues to engage in the style of commenting that he does.)
I’m flagging this as the critical crux that explains the majority (but not the entirety) of the disagreement between us.
If I believed Said was consistently engaging in distortions of clear authorial intent by failing to do due diligence and to engage sufficiently, then I probably would indeed have significantly different views on the propriety of his comments on this site.
“Subtle”! No, it’s actually not subtle at all. It’s a very simple dynamic: you write something that is wrong and/or nonsensical; I point this out; you do not like this being pointed out. Well, who does? It’s embarrassing! Or, in other words:
Schopenhauer also suggests a sure-fire remedy, to prevent such unpleasant scenarios:
Hmm. Yeah, that’s a tough row to hoe.
I don’t know about you, but to me, “frank discussion, out of which correct judgments emerge” seems a lot easier and more reliable than “always be correct, right from the start”. Of course, if you banish from your comment sections anyone who tells you that you’re wrong, then you only have the harder option available to you. I don’t envy you in that case.
There’s little chance we will agree on anything here or convince each other. I’m done with this for now. If I see signs you are arguing in good faith I will unban you, but until then I wish you well.