Perplexed comments on Desirable Dispositions and Rational Actions - Less Wrong

13 Post author: RichardChappell 17 August 2010 03:20AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (180)

Comments (180)

Sort By: Best

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

Comment author: Perplexed 21 August 2010 12:24:20AM 1 point [-]

I'm sure it would be Wei-Dai's read as well. The thing is, if Wei-Dai had not mistakenly come to the conclusion that the authors are wrong and not as enlightened as LWers, that admonishment would not be necessary. I'm not saying he condescends to LWers. I say he condescends to the rest of the world, particularly game theorists.

Comment author: wedrifid 21 August 2010 01:27:07AM 2 points [-]

Are you essentially saying you are nauseated because Wei Dai disagreed with the authors?

Comment author: Perplexed 21 August 2010 03:54:51AM -1 points [-]

No. Not at all. It is because he disagreed through the wrong channels, and then proceeded to propose rather insulting hypotheses as to why they had gotten it wrong.

Just read that list of possible reasons! And there are people here arguing that "of course we want to analyze the cause of mistakes". Sheesh. No wonder folks here are so in love with Evolutionary Psychology.

Ok, I'm probably going to get downvoted to hell because of that last paragraph. And, you know what, that downvoting impulse due to that paragraph pretty much makes my case for why Wei Dai was wrong to do what he did. Think about it.

Comment author: wedrifid 21 August 2010 05:02:45AM 0 points [-]

Ok, I'm probably going to get downvoted to hell because of that last paragraph. And, you know what, that downvoting impulse due to that paragraph pretty much makes my case for why Wei Dai was wrong to do what he did. Think about it.

Interestingly enough I think that it is this paragraph that people will downvote, and not the one above. Mind you, the premise in "No wonder folks here are so in love with Evolutionary Psychology." does seem so incredibly backward that I almost laughed.

No. Not at all. It is because he disagreed through the wrong channels, and then proceeded to propose rather insulting hypotheses as to why they had gotten it wrong.

I can understand your explanation here. Without agreeing with it myself I can see how it follows from your premises.

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 21 August 2010 12:37:51AM * 1 point [-]

I'm having trouble following you.

I'm sure it would be Wei-Dai's read as well.

Are you saying that you read him differently, and that he would somehow be misinterpreting himself?

The thing is, if Wei-Dai had not mistakenly come to the conclusion that the authors are wrong and not as enlightened as LWers, that admonishment would not be necessary.

The admonishment is necessary if LWers are likely to wrongly dismiss Aumann et al. as "crazy". In other words, to think that the admonishment is necessary is to think that LWers are too inclined to dismiss other people as crazy

I'm not saying he condescends to LWers. I say he condescends to the rest of the world, particularly game theorists.

I got that. Who said anything about condescending to LWers?

Comment author: Perplexed comment score below threshold [+] (4 children)

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 21 August 2010 01:29:07AM * 2 points [-]

Condescension is a combination of content and context. When you isolated that quote as especially condescending, I thought that you read something within it that was condescending. I was confused, because the quote could just as well have come from a post arguing that LWers ought to believe that Aumann et al. are right.

It now looks like you and I read the intrinsic meaning of the quote in the same way. The question then is, does that quote, placed in context, somehow make the overall post more condescending than it already was? Wei had already said that his treatment of the AMD was better than that of Aumann et al.. He had already said that these prestigious researchers got it wrong. Do you agree that if this were true, if the experts got it wrong, then we ought to try to understand how that happened, and not just dismiss them as crazy?

Whatever condescension occurred, it occurred as soon as Wei said that he was right and Aumann et al. were wrong. How can drawing a rational inference from that belief make it more condescending?

Comment author: Perplexed 21 August 2010 03:30:33AM 2 points [-]

the question then is, does that quote, placed in context, somehow make the overall post more condescending than it already was?

"They are probably not crazy" strikes me as "damning with faint praise". IMHO, it definitely raises the overall condescension level.

Whatever condescension occurred, it occurred as soon as Wei said that he was right and Aumann et al. were wrong.

No. Peons claim lords are wrong all the time. It is not even impolite, if you are willing to admit your mistake and withdraw your claim reasonably quickly.

Condescension starts when you attempt to "charitably" analyze the source of the error.

Do you agree that if this were true, if the experts got it wrong, then we ought to try to understand how that happened, and not just dismiss them as crazy?

Of course. But if I merely had good reason to believe they were wrong, then my most urgent next step would be to determine whether it were true that they got it wrong. I would begin by communicating with the experts, either privately or through the peer-reviewed literature, so as to get some feedback as to whether they were wrong or I was mistaken. If it does indeed turn out that they were wrong, I would let them take the first shot at explaining the causes of their mistake. I doubt that I would try to analyze the cause of the mistake myself unless I were a trained historian dealing with a mistake at least 50 years old. Or, if I did try (and I probably have), I would hope that someone would point out my presumption.

Comment author: wedrifid 21 August 2010 01:56:25AM * 2 points [-]

In this light I can see where 'condescension' fits in. There is a difference between 'descending to be with' and just plain 'being way above'. For example we could label "they are wrong" as arrogant, "they are wrong but we can empathise with them and understand their mistake" as condescending and "They are wrong, that's the kind of person Nobel prizes go to these days?" as "contemptuous" - even though they all operate from the same "I consider myself above in this instance" premise. Wei's paragraph could then be considered to be transferring weight from arrogance and contempt into condescension.

(I still disapprove of Perplexed's implied criticism.)

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 21 August 2010 02:03:57AM * 3 points [-]

Okay, I can see this distinction. I can see how, as a matter of social convention, "they are wrong but we should understand their mistake" could come across as more condescending than just "they are wrong". But I really don't like that convention. If an expert is wrong, we really do have an obligation to understand how that happened. Accepting that obligation shouldn't be stigmatized as condescending. (Not that you implied otherwise.)

Perplexed comments on Desirable Dispositions and Rational Actions - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (180)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (180)

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