= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lessdazed comments on Eliezer Yudkowsky Facts - 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 (290)
I'm guessing the downvoter knew this was the intended meaning because it's fairly obvious in context. Even if it weren't, the charitable assumption to make is that the critic interpreted the comment correctly.
I have to agree with komponisto on this one. If the downvoter understood the comment and still voted down then he, or she, is a twit.
Perhaps "making the charitable assumption" is, in general, too narrow a phrasing.
Often it happens that someone reveals themselves to be either a twit or a fool, or ignorant or evil, or stupid or mired in delusion and fallacies, etc. In such cases, different people have different intuitions about which state would be worse.
For my part, valuing intelligence, I'd rather be a spiteful contrarian than stupid, largely because people with that problem have higher upside.
Surely you mean "too wide", since your issue seems to be that different people understand it to mean different things in the same situation?
I should claim I meant to do that. Instead, I can honestly plead intoxication...but more likely I was thinking "too narrowing a phrasing".
If they interpreted the comment correctly, then their downvote makes no sense. Hence attributing it to misunderstanding is actually more charitable.
(Unless you have a better explanation for the otherwise-mystifying downvote.)
By that reasoning, the original comment would never have been written.
You think the downvoter agreed with the original comment? Given that comment's score, the post's score (for example), and the fact that I have been downvoted before due to misunderstanding, I think a misunderstanding is more likely.
(Of course this is less relevant now anyway, since the score has changed, implying to me that the misunderstanding has been dispelled.)