I am not convinced that being frustrating is strong evidence of something being good.
That’s not at all the claim that OP is making. Rather, the claim is that being frustrating is not evidence that the given element of the discussion is bad.
This updates me somewhat. I think your wording here works as “not courtroom evidence” or “not proof”, but bayesian evidence is sensitive to ratios even if that makes it a heuristic that almost works. also, frustration seems to me to be a fairly clear cost even if it’s a cost that must sometimes be paid; trying to reduce the range of circumstances where that cost must be paid seems like, in isolation, a worthy thing to try. the question would then be how that trades off, which is more complex. I expect that there are often small wording/communication things one can do to make incidental frustration less likely, by eg increasing clarity, being careful with emphasis, being careful to not include an interlocutor’s deep character as a target of criticism prematurely, otherwise minimizing effort needed by the interlocutor in order to understand, or other such things. it’s easy for me to imagine scenarios where someone with a real point is nevertheless causing a high rate of incidental frustration that is not necessary to make the point.
That’s not at all the claim that OP is making. Rather, the claim is that being frustrating is not evidence that the given element of the discussion is bad.
This updates me somewhat. I think your wording here works as “not courtroom evidence” or “not proof”, but bayesian evidence is sensitive to ratios even if that makes it a heuristic that almost works. also, frustration seems to me to be a fairly clear cost even if it’s a cost that must sometimes be paid; trying to reduce the range of circumstances where that cost must be paid seems like, in isolation, a worthy thing to try. the question would then be how that trades off, which is more complex. I expect that there are often small wording/communication things one can do to make incidental frustration less likely, by eg increasing clarity, being careful with emphasis, being careful to not include an interlocutor’s deep character as a target of criticism prematurely, otherwise minimizing effort needed by the interlocutor in order to understand, or other such things. it’s easy for me to imagine scenarios where someone with a real point is nevertheless causing a high rate of incidental frustration that is not necessary to make the point.