= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Tyrrell_McAllister 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)
ETA: Why haven't you applied this advice to me?
Evidently, she doesn't think that it would be instrumentally useful to like you. Perhaps you can sympathize, since you don't seem to think that it would be instrumentally useful to like her.
Yes, but at least I want to lift off the albatross of having to avoid replying her comments (and her mine) even when it adds to the discussion and is not specifically directed at her. The advice she's given in this article (and past ones) show she believes herself to be an expert on this, but won't take even this reasonable step.
In my opinion, you are a poor judge of when a reply to Alicorn's comments will add to a discussion. Your judgment seems to me to be biased strongly in favor of deciding to reply to Alicorn's comments so as to highlight what you see as their shortcomings, possibly because you wish to lower her status. Thus, what you see as a useful contribution might be seen by others as the latest in a series of unwarranted snarky put-downs.
Therefore, if your primary desire is to discuss general issues that Alicorn also contributes to, you should take great pains to make it clear that you are not attempting to interact with Alicorn, much less disparage her. Concretely, this means that you would:
(1) not address Alicorn in the second person (2) not state or imply that Alicorn's posts are worthless or nearly worthless (3) not ask, directly or indirectly, what Alicorn's opinion on a subject is
but would instead
(4) make assertions about an abstract topic, using the third person (5) use polite phrases like "no offense," "nothing personal," or "in my opinion" (6) ask for the opinion of other LW commenters in general or for the opinion of specific named LWers who you get along with.
Minor note- the phrases "nothing personal" and "no offense" can often have the exact opposite of the intended result. Tthey can come across as condescending and very often when people use them they really are trying to be offensive, although they may not realize it. (A relevant quote from me from about 10 years ago "No offense, but the only thing saving that argument from being completely stupid is that sections of it are incoherent." (Yes, I'd like to think I don't say things like that now)). And "in my opinion" is very rarely useful unless the point being made is that one is a subject matter expert. It also personalizes things unnecessarily in the same way that the 2nd person does, just to a lesser extent.
It probably appears that way because in all the cases since ~Nov '09 when I have a substantive reply to an Alicorn comment, I just don't make it because of this ban. So all the remaining ones you see will be less engaging and productive. Hey -- maybe we should lift that ban ... oh, wait.
I feel I have already demonstrated mastery of this in such comments as these. I don't see how any reasonable person would find those offensive, even as they violate your extensive standards.
As for your (1) to (4) -- yeah, that's an inconvenient, ridiculous set of hoops to jump through, which is why I want to get to the root of our disagreement, and eliminate the need to have to walk through a minefield to exchange ideas. Why doesn't Alicorn want the same? You tell me.
I am not going to vote on or address the content of this post because, in my opinion, it engages in doublespeak and straw-manning. I have a blanket policy of not responding to such tactics on an Internet forum. I am extremely unlikely to make further public comments on the Alicorn-SilasBarta dispute(s).
She is not claiming to be an expert on recognizing when it would be good to like someone. Here is her claim of knowledge:
There is really no contradiction or hypocrisy here unless you are someone whom she wants to like deliberately.
It's not necessary that I be someone she wants to like; the advice is just as relevant for canceling out dislike. And the extensive demands she makes out of that dislike suggest she doesn't actually use this advise in at least one clear case where the dislike is having severe consequences.
Seriously, if the mere sight of a comment of mine replying to her -- no matter what it says, no matter how impersonal -- causes "undesirable peripheral psychological effects", effects that must be elaborately justified by others in order for her to consider enduring them ... you fill in the blank.
Granted, her advice is also relevant to canceling out dislike of someone whom you've already decided that you don't want to dislike. But since she evidently has not made that decision with regard to you, it wouldn't be appropriate for her to use her advice in this case. The relationship that you two have is not in a state where her advice is relevant. If Alicorn started writing posts about when one ought to like someone, then your criticisms would be relevant.
But her advice here is just not relevant to cases where one has decided that one really ought to dislike the other person.
Look, I don't claim to know the entire history of Silas v Alicorn... but I think you would have a much easier time making your case if the comments you made in this very thread hadn't been so unnecessarily antagonistic.
Alright, so having been convinced I have something important to add, you decide that whatever I did to get you to that point was inappropriate. Fair enough.
But tell me, where would be the appropriate place to point out that this Alicorn is completely different from the one I've come to know? As far as possible from where she promotes her deep wisdom? Or near?
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Rhetorical question: Is here the best place to bring up the failures of her advice?
Non-rhetorical question.If I have evidence that suggests Alicorn acts completely differently than implied by this article, what is the best way to go about it, that would have (potentially) convinced you of its merit?
I'm not sure how this question is rhetorical, since it seems to have a perfectly straightforward answer: here would be a perfectly suitable place to bring up failures of her advice, if such failures actually existed.
We've made this point so many times now I feel silly even typing it again, but maybe one more time will do it: her advice has not failed. She wrote an article about how to go about intentionally liking someone. The fact that she's chosen not to intentionally like you is not evidence that she is incapable of doing so in other cases, nor that the advice may not be useful to others.
Since she makes no claims about when or under what circumstances she makes use of the described method, the only thing I read the article to imply about her behavior is that she has had, on at least one occasion, some success in applying this method. So convincing me of the merit of the proposition that this is false would require documentary evidence of her entire life, exhaustively showing a complete absence of any instance of success with this method. Yes, that's a tall order, but you're the one who's trying to prove a negative.
Actually, there's one more important thing I should add: I have conclusive evidence that Alicorn has much to gain from getting over this dislike, by her very own standards. I can prove this by showing that she enjoys my posting, and wishes to reply to -- and even provoke -- my posting, just so long as she knows it's not me. That shows a critical failure to apply her advice when could actually do some good, or at least a failure to recognize a set of heuristics that correctly indicate when the advice should be used.
So why is Alicorn's advice particularly insightful on this subject?
I do not know you and I do not know Alicorn. I do not know who I would have the most sympathy for if I did know both of you. I find this whole discussion off topic. Alicorn gave some advice and I find the advice interesting whether she follows it or not, whether she even believes it or not.
It is very good advice (if and only if you may want from time to time to like someone that you have come to dislike). I personally have tried to develop ways to not start to dislike people in the first place and not worry about whether liking them is to my advantage. However, it has not always been the case that I could like someone and it was sometimes to my disadvantage - so I appreciate the advice.
I suggest that you judge the advice and not the person who gave it. The 'others of us' are not interested in this fight.
One possible reason Alicorn hasn't applied her technique to you is that it simply isn't powerful enough to overcome your unpleasantness. FWIW, I perceive you as a lot less civil than the LW norm, you seem possessed of a snarky combativeness. You also appear to have a tendency of fixating on personal annoyances and justifying your focus with concerns and observations that pop out of nowhere, context-wise.
In this case, your supposed insight into what would really be best for Alicorn plays that role. And then, having established this "lemma", you carry through to the conclusion that... Alicorn's behavior is inconsistent. Take a step back, and look at what you're saying. You're basically claiming to have reverse-engineered someone else's utility function, as the premise of an argument which concludes that they're being a hypocrite.
I hope you'll come to see this sort of behavior as embarrassing.
"FWIW" == "For What It's Worth," to save a few person-minutes for other passive readers here.
Again, because she's not giving advice on knowing when you ought to like someone. She's giving advice on what to do after you have decided that you ought to like someone, even though you don't like them automatically.