rortian comments on Boo lights: groupthink edition - Less Wrong

17 Post author: Morendil 15 February 2010 06:29PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (69)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Morendil 15 February 2010 07:40:26PM 2 points [-]

Consider the full facts about that comment. It starts thus: "I'm only posting this to play devils advocate" - which is a good reason (see ciphergoth's forthcoming list of phrases to never use) to not even attempt a rebuttal.

It suffices as an example of what I want an example of, which is someone who is at least trying, and acknowledging groupthink as a technical term. I don't have to set the bar at "trying and succeeding", not for cryonics: the debate on cryonics has enough evidence of being a debate, so we already know that groupthink isn't happening on that particular topic.

Don't demand particular proof that groupthink isn't happening, such as someone saying "groupthink!" with strong evidence plus rebuttals of their points.

(Hey, I'm agreeing with Eliezer, and linking to his post. Groupthink!)

Comment author: bgrah449 15 February 2010 07:52:07PM *  0 points [-]

I didn't accuse anyone of groupthink or demand any particular proof opposing or supporting claims of groupthink. I said it warranted a rebuttal before being dismissed as an attempt.

Comment author: Morendil 15 February 2010 08:31:57PM *  2 points [-]

Calling it an attempt is no dismissal. Successful attempts are a subset of all attempts.

Comment author: bgrah449 15 February 2010 08:37:47PM 1 point [-]

ADBOC - People refer to successful attempts as "successes," not as "attempts."

Comment author: Morendil 15 February 2010 08:50:44PM 2 points [-]

So conceded. Suggest an edit to the post?

Comment author: bgrah449 16 February 2010 03:47:39PM 0 points [-]

I don't want to disrespect the graciousness of conceding this minor point, but I also don't have a great suggestion. Maybe something as simple as

someone at least making an attempt at substantiating their accusations of groupthink

becoming

someone backing up their accusations of groupthink

? But up to you, I just wanted to point out that "attempt" was bringing in some probably-unintended judgments.

Comment author: Morendil 16 February 2010 05:40:31PM 0 points [-]

Edited, with strikethrough. I wish one could mark comments as applying to a past version of a post - just making the edit would make this exchange meaningless.

Comment author: bgrah449 16 February 2010 05:56:53PM 0 points [-]

I can edit my comment, if that helps - "This comment does not apply to the current version of the post."