= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SilasBarta comments on On Enjoying Disagreeable Company - 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 (243)
No, it wouldn't have been, but let's try that just so you're convinced.
ETA:
When someone, to the best of my knowledge, isn't practicing remotely close to what she preaches (and I've held silent on the first several times she preached this), and claims special insight on it, my obligation to point this out overrides most other obligations. That, and nothing else, motivates my comment.
ETA2: And before you suggest another brilliant idea like, "At least you should have kept this to PM": no, Alicorn's made pretty clear that's not an option either.
She's not necessarily failing to practice what she preaches.... after all, she never said that it's a good idea to like everyone, only that it's possible to like someone intentionally, and that this can be instrumentally useful in some circumstances. It's entirely possible, however, that she simply has no desire to like you - on purpose or otherwise.
EDIT: I've reconsidered this, and what I wrote here is unfair to SilasBarta. What really happened here, I think, is that Alicorn's actions inadvertantly set up a feedback loop, which no one understood well enough to shut down before it blew up here. In this post, I chided Silas for not recognizing and disarming that feedback loop - but the truth is, there were plenty of people, including both Alicorn and myself, who could've repaired the situation with a little more awareness, and this comment really didn't help.
And to clarify - what started this whole thing was Alicorn asking Silas not to respond to any of her comments, which was a strange and hostile thing to ask. In this comment, I interpreted that request by rounding it to the nearest non-strange request, which more than I thought. Unfortunately, when asked to clarify, Alicorn clarified it as literally "don't reply to comments", rather than "don't try to initiate conversations", as she should have.
Original comment below:
Ok, this has gotten painful to watch, and since no one has explained it properly, I feel I ought to overcome the bystander effect and step in. SilasBarta, you have dramatically misunderstood what is happening here. You are flagrantly violating a social norm that you do not seem to understand. Alicorn has acted in a way that is fully determined by your behavior towards her, and anyone else would do the same in her place.
When you speak someone's name and know that they can hear you, you are, in effect, attempting to summon them. It effectively forces them to listen; if in public, they may need to step in to defend their reputation, and if in private they know they're specifically being addressed. Attempts to initiate conversation are a social primitive; neurotypicals track a statistical overview of the nature, frequency, and response given to conversations with each person, and expect each other to do the same.
If you attempt to initiate conversation with someone, they give you a negative response, and you knew or should have known that they would give you a negative response, then you are pestering them. By "negative response", I mean visible irritation, anger, or an attempt to push you out of their sphere of attention without using a pretext. If you repeatedly pester someone who has specifically asked you not to, and you don't have a sufficiently suitable and important pretext, then you are harrassing them. Pestering someone is frowned upon. Harrassing someone is frowned upon, and can also be illegal if it either carries an implied threat or is sufficiently flagrant. Also, our culture assigns additional penalty points for this if you are male and the person you're harrassing is female.
So here is the story, as I understand it. After an interaction that did not go well, Alicorn asked you not to reply to her comments. This means "don't pester me" (or more succinctly, "go away"). This is one of a small number of standard messages which all neurotypicals expect each other to be able to recognize reliably and to pick out of subtext. You continued to participate in conversations Alicorn was involved in, by responding to other commenters, but every time you did so you spoke Alicorn's name, even when you had no pretext for doing so. You interpreted her request in a literal-minded but incorrect way; you failed to generalize from "don't respond to my comments" to "don't try to pull me into a conversation with you by any means".
I'm curious now about this community's perceptions of a person A's requests for a person B not to reply to A's comments. (Note: I'm using letters A and B because this isn't about the particular situation or the individuals in question, and I don't want the individuals' identities to distract from the issue here.)
I posted a comment stating that it wasn't reasonable to ask someone not to reply, which got downvoted. I'm assuming this got downvoted because people disagree.
One person replied stating that A's original request was not to avoid replying to any of A's comments, but to stop making comments that specifically single A out. However, this was not B's interpretation of the request. B seems to think, possibly incorrectly, that A asked B not to reply to any of A's comments on LW.
For people who think this is a reasonable request, here's a hypothetical: suppose C and D are enrolled in a philosophy class together. C and D have an unpleasant interaction, and C requests that D not raise her hand in class and participate in class discussion after C has made a comment. Do people agree that this would be an unreasonable request, unlike, say, "please don't call or email me"? If so, why is a request to not reply to someone's LW comments substantially different?
In a classroom setting, the right to ask people to leave or to not participate is reserved exlusively for the professor; a student could not ask another student to shut up without the teacher's express consent. On a blog, however, no such authority exists, so anyone can make such requests - but only in response to breaking certain social norms without a good excuse.
Well, blogs do have administrators, who hold a similar authority. I believe Eliezer has banned several people from LW for making only poor quality or trollish posts, for instance.
Well, yes, anyone can make such requests, just like I can request that LW commentors refrain from using the word "the" because I find it incredibly offensive. The point is that it isn't a reasonable request. If someone's violated enough of the community norms to be banned, that's a matter for the administrator, but that's different than an individual requesting "please don't reply to my comments in a public discussion forum" as if it were comparable to "please don't email or call me."
It depends on whether D's intention in responding to a comment of C is to contribute to the class discussion or to needle C.
No, the request we're talking about is "don't comment at all in reply to my comments."
Edited to fix link.
ETA: Also see here
Upvoted for the good explanation of the social norm of name-speaking; not necessarily because of the criticism of SilasBarta.
Ok, that's ridiculous. Comments on LW are part of a large group discussion. A person can tell someone else to stop bugging them or emailing them or calling them, but it is not reasonable to ask someone to not make public comments on LW. No one has the right to do that, any more than I have the right to say "stop using the Internet; it bugs me."
True, but that's not the request that was made. She asked him to stop making comments which specifically single her out.
Sorry, jimrandomh, but you are flatly wrong here, and this misunderstanding underpins your entire criticism. Alicorn has asked that I not post any comments as a reply to hers, even if they don't single her out, and even if they involve asking others not to mod her down because of the context of her comment! See here, and here.
Now, please revise your diplomatic comments in light of this new information.
(The funniest part is how Alicorn keeps appealing to her own non-neurotypicality, despite my being the only one accused of missing something due to non-NT. Go fig.)
The most accurate phrasing of the intended meaning of Alicorn's request is the one I wrote in my first post: "do not try to pull me into a conversation with you by any means". A direct reply does that; it singles out the author of the parent, to a degree that depends on how easily someone else could step in and take their place in the conversation. Non-reply comments also do that if they name her; she didn't explicitly say that wasn't allowed, but "leave me the fuck alone" should've covered it.
Except that I stated what I took the request to mean, and she agreed with that. And "do no try to pull me into a conversation ..." just ain't part of it. Take, for example, this comment and this one. Off limits? Well, Alicorn certainly reserves the right to make such comments on my top-level posts. And it doesn't obligate her to respond directly.
So you still appear very confused about the topic you're opining on so strongly and confidently.
Not even close: see here, another major example of Alicorn saying what is and is not okay. The comment I made, though nested under her comment, does not in any way draw her into a conversation, because it is a remark about someone else. It is not addressed to her, but to the group in general, regarding a different poster. Still off limits, for some reason.
Is it starting to dawn on you how you've misinterpreted Alicorn's past demands, and why you should maybe withdraw your misconception -rounded, "noble" criticism of me from earlier?
I see two problems with your selected case.
First, you appeared to violate the stated version of the rule. You need a better reason just to create that appearance than wanting to make a jocular remark.
Second, jocular remarks are drawing people into conversations - they're probably the number-one way to draw someone into a conversation. People joke around with people that they like, and Alicorn does not like you.
I had no idea the concept of "jocular" even applied at the time (and remember, the aspie defense can only be used by Alicorn, not me!) I still don't see how such a remark somehow draws Alicorn to post further (maybe in real life, in-person situations that might be true?).
Does anyone really see why that general, light-hearted jab at Mitchell somehow gives Alicorn a social obligation to continue?
As for violating the stated rule, my (quite reasonable) understanding at the time (though not anymore) was that the mere nesting of the comment doesn't matter; what matters is who it's directed at. And from context, it's clear it's a general, big-picture remark bout Mitchell's theory's inadequacy. (And a bit of a rude one, but not to Alicorn.)
So it's far from obvious I was doing anything wrong at the time -- but apparently, even defending Alicorn for saying "leave me the fuck alone" is blatant disregard for her -- go fig!
Your defense of Alicorn is at +1. Your original remark is at -6. This is because the former comment was appropriate, and the latter not.
Edit 5/27: I have been reminded that the primary reason given for downvoting the original comment was that it was rude, not that it was a reply to Alicorn - I had forgotten this, and left a misleading impression as a consequence.
I hope you know this already, but your social coprocessor is crap, dude. You really need to put in some hard work developing a better set of heuristics, because you've been making a lot of blunders, and it's turning people off.
No, everyone else who's voiced an opinion on this has said that they would never ask someone what Alicorn has asked of me: that I never post a reply to her comments, even if it's not directed at her.
I think that's a large part of why I didn't do any of that in the original comment, just in the version that Kaj asked me to post instead! Who should I listen to here, you or Kaj? Which is the real neurotypical standard that I violated?
No, as I said in my other reply to you, this isn't Alicorn's request at all. It's:
-Don't post any comments nested under Alicorn's, irrespective of content or who the comment is directed at.
-Don't PM Alicorn, even and especially if it's something she would want to know but prefer not be said publicly. (?)
-But posting comments in reply to top-level posts is okay, because Alicorn wants to do so on my top-level posts.
Which comments are you talking about? Be specific. I don't recall violating what Alicorn's request actually was until this conversation, and even then, it wasn't until I substituted my comment for what Kaj asked me to say, and I warned of this at the time!
That's certainly the narrative you want to put on it, sure, but if you actually look at the history of what exactly she asked for (including the very specific clarificaitons), your interpretation is mistaken.
And while I'm believably non-NT, I think I can safely guess there wasn't a lot of nobility in your intent to reply to this comment -- not when anything I could have done would have given you a pretense to build yourself up by pointing out the "obvious" error on my part.
For the record: I wasn't fully aware of the history and magnitude of this conflict, and I didn't realize Alicorn had specifically asked for you to not reply to her at all.
Regardless, as I remember, both versions of the comment were (are) addressed to Alicorn. It was just more implicit in the first one ("I know someone this advice hasn't been applied to" or something along those lines, I think), but it was still pointing out that Alicorn hadn't applied the technique to you. Therefore it was referencing her, just as strongly as if you'd mentioned her.
To be fair, I'm not a neurotypical and have advertised this on the Internet.
I think jimrandomh may be mistaken in selecting "neurotypical" as the relevant criterion - the correlated criterion of "well-socialized" may be nearer the mark.
Good point; that terminology would do a better job of hiding the dissonance in scolding me for my autistic errors, even as Alicorn alone gets the sympathy for being non-NT. Make sure to tell Jim!
"Well-socialized", like "real number", is a perniciously misleading term.
Why?
Because society is not particularly well optimized, the implication of goodness in the modifier "well" is deceptive - a well-socialized person is quite likely to be tribalistic and repressed, for example.
They are? I would expect a well-socialized person to be secure and comfortable and friendly.
Sounds like your definition of "well-socialized" is closer to "well-adjusted" than RobinZ's.
As I understand them, skill in navigating social situations, epistemic rationality and psychological well-being are all separate features. They do seem to correlate, but the causal influences are not obvious.
ETA: Depends a lot on the standard you use, too. RobinZ is probably correct if you look at the upper quartile but less so for the 99th percentile.
I don't know nearly enough to defend my original stance. Consider me confused.
I think the point was that Silas is and he should have responded appropriately. Personally I think NT issue is irrelevant here unless the person receiving the message is not NT, in which case not getting it is a somewhat valid excuse.
Since you advertised it, which "bucket" are you in? My son is on the spectrum, somewhat high functioning, so potential development branches are of personal interest.
I have an Asperger's diagnosis. People who know me in person and know the details of autism symptoms find it entirely credible. People who wouldn't know an autie from any other neuroatypicality are surprised when I tell them (I'm high functioning and have decent social heuristics, and in the minds of the completely uninformed, autism = retardation plus rocking and hand flapping).
Show of hands: who thinks I'm neurotypical?
My hand is horizontal; I think Jim's assumption is that you are. If you are credibly not, and feel you did not get Alicorn's signal due to this you should say so - I think it will create an good case to smoke some peace pipes. Personally, I like you both and wish to see this settled.
Sorry, that ship has already sailed. Alicorn's not interested until first I follow a divaesque list of demands, including "justifying the [probably fake] psychological stress" of having to deal with me, the same stress that somehow manages to disappear when higher-status members do the exact same things she doesn't like.
Actually, my assumption was that he isn't, although this was not based on any strong evidence.
Whoa, when was evidence a pre-requisite for you to post strongly about something? Since two minutes ago?
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you put full credence in Alicorn's self-serving, unverifiable claim to having been diagnosed with Asberger's, despite her infamous, "Why not just meet women on the internet?" line ... am I right?
And yet the very basis for your criticism of me was that I'm making a non-NT-characteristic mistake in interpreting a social situation? Did your arguments come before or after your conclusion?
I, Lucas Sloan, do solemnly swear that Alicorn is not neurotypical, and very probably has Asperger's. I further attest that the information this comment is based on is the result of having physically interacted with her.
I'm not familiar with this “infamous” remark and I'm not sure what you're suggesting it proves or even implies. I recently read the book Born on a Blue Day, which was written by Daniel Tammet, a man with Asperger's. He writes at one point:
Tammet met his partner on the Internet. His reasoning makes sense to me. Is there something ridiculous that I am missing about the suggestion that people, especially those with autism spectrum diagnoses, meet other people on the Internet, as opposed to real life?
Of course. Just check out HughRistik's detailed explanation of how such a suggestion, like "let them eat cake" completely misunderstands the state of an AS male.
Yes, in some time and place it was possible for these internet chats to easily translate into dating for aspies, but apparently, everyone on the site seemed to disagree with Alicorn's assessment.
Much better, thank you. Changed my downvote to an upvote.
Thanks, but keep in mind I can't even reply to this comment, where she tries to explain herself, as she will consider it an atrocity (much like terrorism is an atrocity), simply because she categorically demands that I not post a reply to any of her comments.
Considering that we talk about things other than "the history of Alicorn and Silas" on LW, and that I occasionally have good reason to reply to her comments, this gets to be very inconvenient, very quickly.
I hope it's starting to become obvious why refusal to apply her own advice seems rather inconsistent and unbecoming of someone who would offer such advice.
Can you substantiate this claim about what she considers to be morally equivalent better than you did in this conversation?
Re-read my comment above and note what it does and does not allege; and if "Alicorn deems violation of her demands to be an atrocity" is a reasonable characterization of where she stands.
The narrowest way that I can read your comment is as follows:
"There is badness level x such that Alicorn calls any act with badness level at least x an 'atrocity'. Alicorn thinks that responding to her would have badness level at least x and that terrorism also meets or surpasses this level."
Is that, and no more, all that you meant to imply? You intended no implication that Alicorn considers responding to her and terrorism to be anything remotely close to morally equivalent? Do you believe that terrorism is a representative example of the kinds of acts that Alicorn believes are worse than x? If not, why did you choose that example?
And did she actually use the word "atrocity" to describe your responding to her?
1) When paraphrasing others' views, it's not necessary that they have used the exact words before that you use in the paraphrase. That's what makes it a paraphrase.
The question that matters is: are her actions consistent with classifying my (unapproved) replies to her as an atrocity? I say yes. For one thing, she brooks no excuse whatsoever for violating her demands, even when it goes against her interests. One time:
-She says it's okay to post replies to her top level comments, but not by PM.
-I realize that one such "okay" comment would cause her to lose face, so I say it by PM.
-She accepts that it would cause her to lose face, but that PMing her was just as bad, but would have been okay if I said it publicly.
2) I invoke terrorism to emphasize her over-the-top responses to minor offenses (as she ignores them in others). (And also to remove the sting from the word, but that's a different story.)
Then it sounds like "atrocity" is a prime candidate for tabooing. You made a step towards unpacking "atrocity" by saying that "she brooks no excuse whatsoever for violating her demands".
But your evidence does not show that she brooks no excuse. It shows only that saving her face is an insufficient excuse. Saving her face sounds like a pretty small payoff for getting a PM, at least on a scale that includes terrorism. Therefore, the fact that saving face is an insufficient excuse is weak evidence for the claim that all excuses are insufficient. (Suppose you knew that there was a carbon monoxide leak in her room, and you could only tell her by PM. Do you really think that she would be upset with you if you did?)
But, I gather, you did not mean to imply that her moral evaluation of these "minor offenses" is actually equivalent to her moral evaluation to terrorism. Is that right?
Already done, as you mention, so you don't need to belabor the issue of tabooing.
Okay, now re-interpret everything I've said or will say under standard conventions, in which one does not expect statements to be perfectly exceptionless.
No, it shows intransitive values, which suggests simplistic, trigger-happy moral evaluations.
Of course? The point was the hyperbole she uses in describing my affect on her, emphasized by reference to terrorism.
Why do you think that I took you to mean that your statement was "perfectly exceptionless"? If it is only because I used the phrase "no excuse", then you are failing to extend to me the consideration that you are requesting.
This is not relevant, because I am not challenging your contention that she ought to like you. I am challenging the following contentions:
(1) It is appropriate to say "I can't even reply to this comment . . . as she will consider it an atrocity (much like terrorism is an atrocity)".
(2) Her decision not to like you shows that she is unqualified to give the advice in the OP.
You know that her description of psychological stress is hyperbole? That doesn't seem like the kind of thing that you could establish reliably over the internet. Not without some smoking gun like her saying, "You know, Silas, I really like interacting with you."
Once again, how is it that she's failing to apply her own advice? Several people now have offered a retort to this claim - either rebut it, or stop making the claim.
I did rebut those retorts. Now, respond to those rebuttals, or stop making the same claim (and starting an information cascade).
No, you just explained why it would be instrumentally useful to YOU for her to intentionally like you.
No, she clearly gains from being able to post impersonal replies nested under my comments -- just as she gains from making posts replying to my top-level posts, even though I could revoke this privilege, and she would be obligated, by symmetry, to honor it.
So, even if she really, truly doesn't care about having to avoid my comments, and even she doesn't get "peripheral psychological" damage from seeing the existence of my comments (which, truth be told, she probably doesn't), then this state only exists because of diplomacy on my part -- not from following the advice in this article.