MichaelVassar 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)
Tags: sex_at_dawn evpsych gender science

Comments (153)

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

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.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit