@Raemon FYI there isn’t internet at our place since ~26h ago so Logan probably hasn’t looked at this or any other responses yet.
[DEACTIVATED] Duncan Sabien
Karma: 10,975
My objection is that it doesn’t distinguish between [unpleasant fights that really should in fact be had] from [unpleasant fights that shouldn’t]. It’s a very handy term for delegitimizing any protracted conflict, which is a boon to those who’d like to get away with really shitty behavior by hijacking politeness norms.
“There was a Muggle once named Mohandas Gandhi,” Harry said to the floor. “He thought the government of Muggle Britain shouldn’t rule over his country. And he refused to fight. He convinced his whole country not to fight. Instead he told his people to walk up to the British soldiers and let themselves be struck down, without resisting, and when Britain couldn’t stand doing that any more, we freed his country. I thought it was a very beautiful thing, when I read about it, I thought it was something higher than all the wars that anyone had ever fought with guns or swords. That they’d really done that, and that it had actually worked.” Harry drew another breath. “Only then I found out that Gandhi told his people, during World War II, that if the Nazis invaded they should use nonviolent resistance against them, too. But the Nazis would’ve just shot everyone in sight. And maybe Winston Churchill always felt that there should’ve been a better way, some clever way to win without having to hurt anyone; but he never found it, and so he had to fight.” Harry looked up at the Headmaster, who was staring at him. “Winston Churchill was the one who tried to convince the British government not to give Czechoslovakia to Hitler in exchange for a peace treaty, that they should fight right away—”
“I recognize the name, Harry,” said Dumbledore. The old wizard’s lips twitched upward. “Although honesty compels me to say that dear Winston was never one for pangs of conscience, even after a dozen shots of Firewhiskey.”
“The point is,” Harry said, after a brief pause to remember exactly who he was talking to, and fight down the suddenly returning sense that he was an ignorant child gone insane with audacity who had no right to be in this room and no right to question Albus Dumbledore about anything, “the point is, saying violence is evil isn’t an answer. It doesn’t say when to fight and when not to fight. It’s a hard question and Gandhi refused to deal with it, and that’s why I lost some of my respect for him.”
“And your own answer, Harry?” Dumbledore said quietly.
“One answer is that you shouldn’t ever use violence except to stop violence,” Harry said. “You shouldn’t risk anyone’s life except to save even more lives. It sounds good when you say it like that. Only the problem is that if a police officer sees a burglar robbing a house, the police officer should try to stop the burglar, even though the burglar might fight back and someone might get hurt or even killed. Even if the burglar is only trying to steal jewelry, which is just a thing. Because if nobody so much as inconveniences burglars, there will be more burglars, and more burglars. And even if they only ever stole things each time, it would—the fabric of society—” Harry stopped. His thoughts weren’t as ordered as they usually pretended to be, in this room. He should have been able to give some perfectly logical exposition in terms of game theory, should have at least been able to see it that way, but it was eluding him. Hawks and doves—“Don’t you see, if evil people are willing to risk violence to get what they want, and good people always back down because violence is too terrible to risk, it’s—it’s not a good society to live in, Headmaster! Don’t you realize what all this bullying is doing to Hogwarts, to Slytherin House most of all?”
In particular, I note that the set of people with vocal distaste for demon threads seems to strongly disoverlap with the set of people I’ve seen actually effectively come to the aid of someone being bullied. The disoverlap isn’t total, but it’s a really good predictor in my personal experience.
I’ve tried for a bit to produce a useful response to the top-level comment and mostly failed, but I did want to note that
“Oh, it sort of didn’t occur to me that this analogy might’ve carried a negative connotation, because when I was negatively gossiping about Duncan behind his back with a bunch of other people who also have an overall negative opinion of him, the analogy was popular!”
is a hell of a take. =/
Claim: this sequence is almost one hundred percent about studying something other than your mind, and what’s happening is a confusion between tools and purposes.
At a very coarse/gross level of understanding, the way that we gather information about objects is by hurling other objects at them, and watching the interaction. This is one way to think about light—we throw trillions of tiny photons at an object, and the way they bounce off gives us information about the object (its location, shape, surface properties, etc).
Ditto sound waves, now that I think of it (the photon analogy is from Brian Greene’s The Elegant Universe).
The key point is that we never quite interact directly with the object. We do on human scales; there’s a thing we call “direct interaction” that makes sense to talk about. But actually what’s going on is that we’re perceiving photons that are out there hurtling through the void, and constructing understanding via extrapolation about what those photons interacted with a fraction of a second earlier.
We don’t talk about “studying the photons” when we describe looking at an object, though. We gloss over that step, handwave it away.
This sequence is, I think, about looking at things other than your brain.
But it focuses on the analogue of the photons themselves. It’s looking through your own phenomenology, to understand what’s really going on out there. It’s saying (roughly) “notice how these photons bounce off this way, and these other photons bounce off that way, and these other photons get absorbed, and see what you can reasonably conclude about the object, given those facts.”
So there’s a heavy focus on your own perceptions, and your emotional reactions, and so forth, but it’s in service of understanding the object that is upstream of [your brain reacting in such a way].
Honestly, I was somewhat surprised to hear @Raemon ’s complaint, and at first bewildered/taken aback, because it hadn’t even occurred to me that this sequence might be mistaken for being about minds/brains. But of course it does talk a lot about the internals of one’s experience, so I understand the confusion! Ray’s complaint isn’t coming out of nowhere!
But to tack on yet another analogy, I feel sort of like just … reassuring the complaint away? In the same way that, if I were teaching a parkour class and a student was like, wait, why are we doing pushups and stretches, I thought we were here to do vaults, I would be like yes, yes, don’t worry, we are absolutely getting to the vaults, but this is important preparation for the vaults, and will help you build up the strength and physical vocabulary necessary to be non-lost once we start working on the vaults, which is coming right up, actually.
“Let’s imagine that these unspecified details, which could be anywhere within a VERY wide range, are specifically such that the original point is ridiculous, in support of concluding that the original point is ridiculous” does not seem like a reasonable move to me.
Separately:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WsvpkCekuxYSkwsuG/overconfidence-is-deceit
… well, then regardless of whether you agree with the author in question about whether or not my comments are good/important/whatever, the fact that he holds this view casts very serious doubt on your thesis. Wouldn’t you agree?
Said is asking Ray, not me, but I strongly disagree.
Point 1 is that a black raven is not strong evidence against white ravens. (Said knows this, I think.)
Point 2 is that a behavior which displeases many authors can still be pleasant or valuable to some authors. (Said knows this, I think.)
Point 3 is that benquo’s view on even that specific comment is not the only author-view that matters; benquo eventually being like “this critical feedback was great” does not mean that other authors watching the interaction at the time did not feel “ugh, I sure don’t want to write a post and have to deal with comments like this one.” (Said knows this, I think.)
(Notably, benquo once publicly stated that he suspected a rough interaction would likely have gone much better under Duncan moderation norms specifically; if we’re updating on benquo’s endorsements then it comes out to “both sets of norms useful,” presumably for different things.)
I’d say it casts mild doubt on the thesis, at best, and that the most likely resolution is that Ray ends up feeling something like “yeah, fair, this did not turn out to be the best example,” not “oh snap, you’re right, turns out it was all a house of cards.”
(This will be my only comment in this chain, so as to avoid repeating past cycles.)
Strong disagree that I’m describing a deeply dysfunctional gym; I barely described the gym at all and it’s way overconfident/projection-y to extrapolate “deeply dysfunctional” from what I said.
There’s a difference between “hey, I want to understand the underpinnings of this” and the thing I described, which is hostile to the point of “why are you even here, then?”
Edit: I view the votes on this and the parent comment as indicative of a genuine problem; jimmy above is exhibiting actually bad reasoning (à la representativeness) and the LWers who happen to be hanging around this particular comment thread are, uh, apparently unaware of this fact. Alas.
Just noting that “What specifically did it get wrong?” is a perfectly reasonable question to ask, and is one I would have (in most cases) been willing to answer, patiently and at length.
That I was unwilling in that specific case is an artifact of the history of Zack being quick to aggressively misunderstand that specific essay, in ways that I considered excessively rude (and which Zack has also publicly retracted).
Given that public retraction, I’m considering going back and in fact answering the “what specifically” question, as I normally would have at the time. If I end up not doing so, it will be more because of opportunity costs than anything else. (I do have an answer; it’s just a question of whether it’s worth taking the time to write it out months later.)
Cranks ask questions of people they think are wrong, in order to try and expose the weaknesses in their arguments. They signal aloofness, because their priority is on being seen as an authority who deserves similar or higher status (at least on the issue at hand) as the person they’re addressing. They already expect the author they’re questioning is fundamentally confused, and so they don’t waste their own time trying to figure out what the author might have meant. The author, and the audience, are lucky to have the crank’s attention, since they’re obviously collectively lost in confusion and need a disinterested outsider to call attention to that fact.
And this attitude is particularly corrosive to feelings of trust, collaboration, “jamming together,” etc. … it’s like walking into a martial arts academy and finding a person present who scoffs at both the instructors and the other students alike, and who doesn’t offer sufficient faith to even try a given exercise once before first a) hearing it comprehensively justified and b) checking the sparring records to see if people who did that exercise win more fights.
Which, yeah, that’s one way to zero in on the best martial arts practices, if the other people around you also signed up for that kind of culture and have patience for that level of suspicion and mistrust!
(I choose martial arts specifically because it’s a domain full of anti-epistemic garbage and claims that don’t pan out.)
But in practice, few people will participate in such a martial arts academy for long, and it’s not true that a martial arts academy lacking that level of rigor makes no progress in discovering and teaching useful things to its students.
Just noting as a “for what it’s worth”
(b/c I don’t think my personal opinion on this is super important or should be particularly cruxy for very many other people)
that I accept, largely endorse, and overall feel fairly treated by the above (including the week suspension that preceded it).
Spending my last remaining comment here.
I join Ray and Gwern in noting that asking for examples is generically good (and that I’ve never felt or argued to the contrary). Since my stance on this was called into question, I elaborated:
If one starts out looking to collect and categorize evidence of their conversational partner not doing their fair share of the labor, then a bunch of comments that just say “Examples?” would go into the pile. But just encountering a handful of comments that just say “Examples?” would not be enough to send a reasonable person toward the hypothesis that their conversational partner reliably doesn’t do their fair share of the labor.
“Do you have examples?” is one of the core, common, prosocial moves, and correctly so. It is a bid for the other person to put in extra work, but the scales of “are we both contributing?” don’t need to be balanced every three seconds, or even every conversation. Sometimes I’m the asker/learner and you’re the teacher/expounder, and other times the roles are reversed, and other times we go back and forth.
The problem is not in asking someone to do a little labor on your behalf. It’s having 85+% of your engagement be asking other people to do labor on your behalf, and never reciprocating, and when people are like, hey, could you not, or even just a little less? being supercilious about it.
My recent experience has been that saying “this is half-baked” is not met with a subsequent shift in commentary, meeting the “Oh, I don’t have any yet, this is speculative, so YMMV” tone.
I think it would be nice if LW could have both tones:
I’m claiming this quite confidently; bring on the challenges, I’m ready to convince
I have a gesture in a direction I’m pretty sure has merit, but am not trying to e.g. claim that if others don’t update to my position they’re wrong; this is a sapling and I’d like help growing it, not help stepping on it.
Trying to do things in the latter tone on LW has felt, to me, extremely anti-rewarding of late, and I’m hoping that will change, because I think a lot of good work happens there. That’s not to say that the former tone is bad; it feels like they are twin pillars of intellectual progress.
I generally agree with the above and expect to be fine with most of the specific versions of any of the three bulleted solutions that I can actually imagine being implemented.
I note re:
It’d be cruxy for me if more high-contributing-users actively supported the sort of moderation regime Duncan-in-particular seems to want.
… that (in line with the thesis of my most recent post) I strongly predict that a decent chunk of the high-contributing users who LW has already lost would’ve been less likely to leave and would be more likely to return with marginal movement in that direction.
I don’t know how best to operationalize this, but if anyone on the mod team feels like reaching out to e.g. ~ten past heavy-hitters that LW actively misses, to ask them something like “how would you have felt if we had moved 25% in this direction,” I suspect that the trend would be clear. But the LW of today seems to me to be one in which the evaporative cooling has already gone through a couple of rounds, and thus I expect the LW of today to be more “what? No, we’re well-adapted to the current environment; we’re the ones who’ve been filtered for.”
(If someone on the team does this, and e.g. 5 out of 8 people the LW team misses respond in the other direction, I will in fact take that seriously, and update.)
Does that influence
To be honest, I think I have to take this exchange as further evidence that Duncan is operating in bad faith. (Within this particular conflict, not necessarily in general.)
in any way?
Four days’ later edit: guess not. :/
I agree that escalating to arbitrary levels of nuance makes communication infeasible, and that you can and should only highlight the relevant and necessary distinctions.
I think “someone just outright said I’d repeatedly said stuff I hadn’t” falls above the line, though.
Yeah. One is small, and the other is tiny. The actual comment that the anonymous person is mocking/castigating said:
I note (while acknowledging that this is a small and subtle distinction, but claiming that it is an important one nonetheless) that I said that I now categorize Said as a liar, which is an importantly and intentionally weaker claim than Said is a liar, i.e. “everyone should be able to see that he’s a liar” or “if you don’t think he’s a liar you are definitely wrong.”
(This is me in the past behaving in line with the points I just made under Said’s comment, about not confusing [how things seem to me] with [how they are] or [how they do or should seem to others].)
This is much much closer to saying “Liar!” than it is to not saying “Liar!” … if one is to round me off, that’s the correct place to round me off to. But it is still a rounding.
(I suppose seeing posts actually cited outside the LessWrong community would be a better/more-objective measure of “something demonstrably good is happening, not potentially just circle-jerky”. I’m interested in tracking that although it seems trickier)
In order from “slightly outside of LessWrong” to “very far outside of LessWrong,” I refactored the CFAR handbook against (mild) internal resistance from CFAR and it was received well, I semi-regularly get paid four or low-five figures to teach people rationality, I’ve been invited to speak at 4+ EA Globals and counting, my In Defense of Punch Bug essay has 1800 claps which definitely did not primarily come from this community, my Magic color wheel article has 18,800 claps and got a shoutout from CGPGrey, my sixth grade classroom was featured in a chapter in a book on modern education, and my documentary on parkour was translated by volunteers into like eight different languages and cited by the founder as his favorite parkour video of all time (at at least one moment in time). *shrug
You also need to accept that other factors beyond word choice play into how your words will be perceived: claiming this distinction is of tremendous importance lands differently in the context of this giant adversarial escalation-spiral than it would in an alternate reality where you were writing a calm and collected post and had never gotten into a big argument with Said
Er. I very explicitly did not claim that it was a distinction of tremendous importance. I was just objecting to the anonymous person’s putting them in the same bucket.
In my opinion, the internet has fine-grained distinctions aplenty. In fact, where to split hairs and where to twist braids is sort of basic to each political subculture. What I think makes LessWrong different is that we take a somewhat, maybe not agnostic but more like a liberal/pluralistic view of the categories.
Endorsed/updated; this is a better summary than the one I gave.
...while acting as though somehow that would have been less offensive if they had only added “I suspect” to the latter half of that sentence as well. Raise your hand if you think that “I suspect that you won’t like this idea, because I suspect that you have the emotional maturity of a child” is less offensive because it now represents an unambiguously true statement of an opinion rather than being misconstrued as a fact.
✋
The thing that makes LW meaningfully different from the rest of the internet is people bothering to pay attention to meaningful distinctions even a little bit.
The distance between “I categorize Said as a liar” and “Said is a liar” is easily 10x and quite plausibly 100-1000x the distance between “You blocked people due to criticizing you” and “you blocked people for criticizing you.” The latter is two synonymous phrases; the former is not.
(I also explicitly acknowledged that Ray’s rounding was the right rounding to make, whereas Said was doing the opposite and pretending that swapping “due to” and “for” had somehow changed the meaning in a way that made the paraphrase invalid.)
You being like “Stop using phrases that meticulously track uncommon distinctions you’ve made; we already have perfectly good phrases that ignore those distinctions!” is not the flex you seem to think it is; color blindness is not a virtue.
A meta point that is outside of the scope of the object level disagreement/is a tangent:
Once again you miss a (the?) key point.
“What are some examples?” does not constitute “calling out a flaw”—unless there should be examples but aren’t. Otherwise, it’s an innocuous question, and a helpful prompt.
I note that the following exchange recently took place:
Said: [multiple links to him just saying “Examples?”]
Me: [in a style I would not usually use but with content that is not far from my actual belief] I’m sorry, how do any of those (except possibly 4) satisfy any reasonable definition of the word “criticism?”
Said: Well, I think that “criticism”, in a context like this topic of discussion, certainly includes something like “pointing to a flaw or lacuna, or suggesting an important or even necessary avenue for improvement”.
So we have Said a couple of days ago defending “What are some examples?” as definitely being under the umbrella of criticism, further defined as the subset of criticism which is pointing to a flaw or suggesting an important or even necessary avenue for improvement.
Then we have Said here saying that it is a key point that “What are some examples?” does not constitute calling out a flaw.
(The difference between the two situations being (apparently) the entirely subjective/mysterious/unstated property of “whether there should be examples but aren’t,” noting that Said thinking there exists a skipped step or a confusing leap is not particularly predictive of the median high-karma LWer thinking there exists a skipped step or a confusing leap.)
I am reminded again of Said saying that I A’d people due to their B, and I said no, I had not A’d anyone for B’ing, and Said replied ~”I never said you A’d anyone for B’ing; you can go check; I said you’d A’d them due to B’ing.”
i.e. splitting hairs and swirling words around to create a perpetual motte-and-bailey fog that lets him endlessly nitpick and retreat and say contradictory things at different times using the same words, and pretending to a sort of principle/coherence/consistency that he does not actually evince.
It is only safe for you to have opinions if the other people don’t dislike them?
I think you’re trying to set up a really mean dynamic where you get to say mean things about me in public, but if I point out anything frowny about that fact you’re like “ah, see, I knew that guy was Bad; he’s making it Unsafe for me to say rude stuff about him in the public square.”
(Where “Unsafe” means, apparently, “he’ll respond with any kind of objection at all.” Apparently the only dynamic you found acceptable was “I say mean stuff and Duncan just takes it.”)
*shrug
I won’t respond further, since you clearly don’t want a big back-and-forth, but calling people a weird bug and then pretending that doesn’t in practice connote disgust is a motte and bailey.