= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
anonym comments on Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People - 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 (420)
I thought there actually was a strong norm already that was being flouted.
The model I had in mind was:
LW's "Strong critique of comment in direct reply to a comment or post" is to "ignoring the critique and failing to reply"
as
Academia's "Strong paper that criticizes methodology, etc., of a published paper" is to "not publishing a response to the critique".
In academia, a researcher that habitually failed to address serious flaws in their publications would quickly lose status and become irrelevant. I thought something like that was a norm at LW.
The judgement behind 'strong paper' and 'strong critique' is important and similar judgement must be used to decide whether to reply to criticism. This is particularly the case when the critic is not acting in good faith (again, in your judgement) and has a talent for obfuscation and rhetoric.
Strongly agree.
I'm not advocating anything like "always respond". I'm advocating that when people actually think it's a strong critique, they should respond rather than playing the status game of pretending they don't really think it's a strong critique by ignoring it. Additionally, even if they don't think it's a strong critique, if many other people 'whose judgment they would trust in other similar situations' do think it's a strong critique, then they should also respond.