WrongBot comments on Against the standard narrative of human sexual evolution - Less Wrong

7 Post author: WrongBot 23 July 2010 05:28AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (153)

Comments (153)

Sort By: Best

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

Comment author: WrongBot 23 July 2010 06:32:50AM 7 points [-]

but between bad writing style, blatantly stupid conclusions and incoherent argument I wish I could vote this down more than once.

Could you qualify those criticisms? What do you dislike about my writing style? Which conclusions are blatantly stupid? Which arguments do you find incoherent?

Comment author: Emile 23 July 2010 03:40:27PM * 10 points [-]

Personally, I found that there wasn't a sufficiently clear distinction between when an argument was part of the "standard model", when it was made in the book, and when it was your opinion.

Also, this sentence:

There are four major research areas supporting the standard narrative that Sex at Dawn identifies in Chapter 3 as underpinned by Flintstoned reasoning, which collectively lead to the conclusion that "Darwin says your mother's a whore." (Ryan and Jethá, 50)

... is very confusing, and trying to be witty doesn't help. Just look at the grammar:

A supports B that C identifies as underpinned by D, which leads to the conclusion that "E says F" (G).

I mean, what the fuck? Is the conclusion that "Darwin says your mother's a whore." or "your mother's a whore."?

I understood the sentence after three or four rereadings, but I certainly wouldn't put it in the hall of fame of "clear and concise writing".

Comment author: WrongBot 23 July 2010 04:47:56PM 3 points [-]

Not my best work, I agree. I've edited the post to make that section clearer.

Comment author: MichaelVassar comment score below threshold [+] (19 children)

Comment author: WrongBot 23 July 2010 03:03:59PM 5 points [-]

For what it's worth, I upvoted Cousin It's comment and, having slept on it, agree that the way I structured the posts in this sequence was an error; I will avoid quarantining large piles of evidence in this fashion should I write such a series in the future.

Unlike Cousin It, your criticism provided no information that would allow me to avoid offending you in the future. I suppose signaling your distaste has been satisfying, but you may want to consider being nicer; given your support for that notion, I'm really quite surprised to see this hostility in the first place.

Comment author: MichaelVassar 23 July 2010 03:55:04PM 0 points [-]

I don't actually feel hostile. I'm not offended at all. I don't think you are being dishonest, hostile, lazy, or in any sense a jerk. What I feel is a desire for you to practice critical thinking somewhere with lower standards (and especially by reading discussions where people actually change their mind, admittedly those are difficult to find) before posting here. I'd like you to actually learn to think and write more skillfully and then come back.

My comment was lazy and unhelpful. It deserves downvotes (given that opinion, should I just delete it?). As noted though, what CousinIt said is only the tip of the iceberg. I really don't want to try to explain all of what I think is wrong with it.

Comment author: RobinZ 23 July 2010 07:23:02PM 5 points [-]

(given that opinion, should I just delete it?).

Not as a rule. The obvious, minor reason is that it provides context for the discussion following it. The less obvious, major reason (one which doesn't apply here, I think, but which deserves frequent mention) is that revising history is liable to cause massive unpleasantness and reputational damage.

Comment author: ciphergoth 24 July 2010 09:38:39PM 2 points [-]

I've been known to edit comments to say essentially "OK I take it back".

Comment author: RobinZ 25 July 2010 06:06:34PM 0 points [-]

Proper protocol, I believe, is to insert an "[edit: disclaimer]" note.

Comment author: ciphergoth 26 July 2010 06:30:28AM 1 point [-]

Oh, absolutely it's best to let the original contents stand when you add such a remark, yes.

Comment author: Tenek 23 July 2010 05:41:51PM 5 points [-]

How is WrongBot going to learn to think and write more skillfully by moving to a place that's collectively worse at doing so?

Comment author: MichaelVassar 24 July 2010 03:55:48PM 1 point [-]

Presumably, however others do. One can learn thinking by observation, and we're surely not the people to look to for writing skill, except possibly if one simply means logical care and analytical clarity as one's definition of writing skill.

Comment author: WrongBot 23 July 2010 10:04:39PM 5 points [-]

If I am actually bad enough at thinking and writing that I am a net loss to this community, as you seem to be implying, I do not see why this is so. If I don't know what you are requesting that I fix, how should I know when to come back?

Your repeated refusal to justify your claims strikes me as a form of logical rudeness. When I look at my total karma and the average karma of posts and comments I've made, I see that there is generally some level of appreciation for my contributions to this website. Why do you disagree with the consensus strongly enough to ask me to leave?

Comment author: ciphergoth 24 July 2010 09:41:42PM 5 points [-]

No, I don't think there's room to consider a refusal to take part in a debate a form of logical rudeness. The purpose of logical rudeness is to hide the absence of a counter-argument: openly refusing to offer one is a different thing.

Comment author: WrongBot 24 July 2010 09:58:08PM 2 points [-]

I would think that if one were not interested in taking part in a debate, one wouldn't start one.

Is it really unobjectionable to make a strong attack on a position and refuse to explain why?

Comment author: Vladimir_M 24 July 2010 10:28:19PM * 4 points [-]

WrongBot:

Is it really unobjectionable to make a strong attack on a position and refuse to explain why?

It can be justified in certain circumstances. Sometimes I see a terribly wrong argument, but providing a satisfactory counter-argument would require much more time and space than I have available. In such situations, I will sometimes write a reply that the argument is wrong, but proving this would require more effort that I can realistically afford, so that the author should take it on authority and good faith that he needs to reconsider his position (and perhaps do some more learning before he's competent to tackle the problem constructively).

(This is not meant to imply anything more specific about this concrete dispute -- I am merely giving a general answer to the question.)

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 24 July 2010 10:03:40PM * 2 points [-]

Is it really unobjectionable to make a strong attack on a position and refuse to explain why?

The strength of the attack should be evaluated according to evidence contained in the attack. If it's a statement from authority, then not very much evidence, depending on who states what on which topic. Still better than no input, but often not by much.

Comment author: MichaelVassar 24 July 2010 04:01:55PM 1 point [-]

I don't have time for a justification, take it for what it is. That may be rude, but it is definitely not analogous to what is discussed in the post you linked to. I suppose though, in terms of justifications, that fact is pretty close to what I'm thinking of. You seem to implicitly make analogies which are simply wrong, to do it routinely, and to do it in a manner which would be time-consuming to correct. I'd rather Karma ask for me, but I think people are far too generous with Karma in general, not just with you.

Comment author: WrongBot 24 July 2010 09:05:16PM * 3 points [-]

The post on logical rudeness identifies the following subtypes of the phenomenon:

Switching between two arguments whenever headway is being made against one, such that neither can ever be refuted because the topic is changed every time that becomes a danger.
Suddenly weakening a claim without acknowledging that it is any sort of concession.
Offering a non-true rejection.

Eliezer also identifies the opposite of logical rudeness, to which he aspires:

I stick my neck out so that it can be chopped off if I'm wrong, and when I stick my neck out it stays stuck out, and if I have to withdraw it I'll do so as a visible concession. I may parry - and because I'm human, I may even parry when I shouldn't - but I at least endeavor not to dodge. Where I plant my standard, I have sent an invitation to capture that banner; and I'll stand by that invitation.

Saying (as you have) that "you're stupid and bad at thinking and I won't say why but it's so bad that I want you to go away" is a form of logical rudeness I would generally identify as

Making strong claims, stating that they are backed up by strong evidence, and then refusing to provide that evidence.

Like the subtypes Eliezer describes, it's a form of motivated arguing that makes losing the argument impossible. That doesn't sound like any sort of neck-sticking-out I'm familiar with. You have not invited me to capture your banner; you have hidden it.

Comment author: MichaelVassar comment score below threshold [+] (2 children)

Comment author: Blueberry 24 July 2010 04:39:32PM 0 points [-]

Why do you disagree with the consensus strongly enough to ask me to leave?

Apparently your post hits a nerve with some people here.

WrongBot comments on Against the standard narrative of human sexual evolution - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (153)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (153)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login