= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
orthonormal comments on Open Thread: March 2010, part 3 - 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 (254)
Even if you're good at ascribing intent to others, stating it is likely to do more harm than good. I've tried in the past to give people my analysis of why they're thinking what they're thinking. It inevitably reinforces their resistance rather than lessening it, since agreeing with my analysis would mean publicly acknowledging a character flaw.
It's much better to leave them a line of retreat, letting them think of changing their mind in terms of "updating on new evidence" rather than "admitting irrationality".
P.S. I'm not responding to the linked example, but to the general practice which I think is counterproductive.
I'll provisionally agree that it's not all that useful to tell people what you think of their intent. This is why I linked it as a 'bad thing' for me to say: I considered it a generally combative post, where my intent was to sneer at the other person rather than alter their behavior for the better.
I tend to get around this in real world conversations with the use of questions rather than statements, but that requires rapid back and forth. Text forums are just about the worst place to use my most-developed methods of discussion...