= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
hegemonicon comments on Logical Rudeness - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (203)
Given the machinery we use for them is geared more for winning fights than for generating correct beliefs, it's frankly amazing that arguments manage to change any minds at all.
I wonder how effective strategies for careful discourse without any obvious conflict - where essentially the other party doesn't recognize that an argument is taking place - might be.
The more private a debate, the more likely people will be generous enough for this to happen; the more public, the more hostile they will be. Hostility is a status-grab, and people in arguments (including this forum) reward it if they think the grabber deserving. Similarly, generosity is low-status, and people who are generous in public debates have very little to gain. Publicly failing in the quantity necessary to maximize your learning growth is very low-status and not many people have the stomach for it.
EDIT: Being low-status also makes it much easier for people to stop responding to your arguments, as "That's not worthy of a response" is much more believable from the higher-status arguer when the status difference is high.
Try privately arguing with a holocaust denier or a moon hoaxer. The ones I argued with seem to be more arrogant and more hostile the more they knew that they no third party is observing the "argument"
This is a great point, but maybe I'm just saying that because it's the exception that proves the rule. Just by arguing with someone with a fringe viewpoint, you've granted them roughly equal status, so they will be highly hostile as a status grab. However, in a group, these fringe viewpoints have a history of rewarding their advocate with exile - so the advocates will make a show of giving away status in that circumstance.
Compare this vs. mainstream, acceptable views - say, conservative vs. liberal in private vs. public. It's much easier to have a productive conversation in private about these views than in public.
"the exception that proves the rule" seems like a very un-Bayesian thing to say. The implication is that both X and ~X provide evidence for the hypothesis. (Not that I always communicate my actual and complete hypothesis -- sometimes that is a distraction from my main point.)
I think the implication is not that both X and ~X provide evidence for the hypothesis, but rather something like, "yes, there are a few exceptions to the rule, but if you look at what the exceptions are they're so unusual that they just underline the fact that the rule is generally (though not universally) applicable."
Wait, what?
When the pecking order is well-defined, we like to see it, but in a neck-and-neck competition, generosity is interpreted as deferral.
That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how to go about acting on it.
Would you just pretend to have the same initial beliefs and then 'discuss' counterarguments that you 'just thought of'?
That method wouldn't work if the person already knows your position, but it might work quite well if the person isn't even aware of your position, much less that you hold it.
I've done this occasionally, actually.
One time, I found a very opinionated guy with a high opinion of himself -- I think he might have been Objectivist, but he scoffed at literally every philosophy he mentioned so it's hard to tell. I figured that trying to debate him would just end the conversation early; he's the type to quickly classify those who disagree as sheeple. So, I copied his conversational style a bit, agreed with him on most points but disagreed enough to keep the conversation interesting and get some insight into his views. I don't think I was directly dishonest about my opinions; I just positioned myself as an ally (in an "Us vs. Them" sense) and worked from there.
I recommend this to anyone who wants to understand the reasoning of, say, creationists, but can't talk to them without reaching an impasse of rationality vs. dogma.
Giving someone status on a non-content channel will let you get away with murder on the content channel.
Giving someone status now may some times be exchanged for them giving up some equal bit of status later
Thats likely so much more valuable then we all know or care to admit would you do us a favor and give SIAI some spare cash when you have the chance it would drive your point home and be an education to us all :)