= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on The 5-Second Level - 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 (310)
Agreed, although I don't know that I have any Asperger's. Here's a sample dialogue I actually had that would have gone better if I had been in touch with my inner moralizer. I didn't record it, so it's paraphrased from memory:
X: It's really important to me what happens to the species a billion years from now. (X actually made a much longer statement, with examples.)
Me: Well, you're human, so I don't think you can really have concerns about what happens a billion years from now because you can't imagine that period of time. It seems much more likely that you perceive talking about things a billion years off to be high status, and what you really want is the short term status gain from saying you have impressive plans. People aren't really that altruistic.
X: I hate it when people point out that there are two of me. The status-gaming part is separate from the long-term planning part.
Me: There are only one of you, and only one of me.
X: You're selfish! (This actually made more sense in the real conversation than it does here. This was some time ago and my memory has faded.)
Me: (I exited the conversation at this point. I don't remember how.)
I exited because I judged that X was making something he perceived to be an ad-hominem argument, and I knew that X knew that ad-hominem arguments were fallacious, and I couldn't deal with the apparent dishonesty. It is actually true that I am selfish, in the sense that I acknowledge no authority over my behavior higher than my own preferences. This isn't so bad given that some of my preferences are that other people get things they probably want. Today I'm not sure X was intending to make an ad-hominem argument. This alternative for my last step would have been better:
Me if I were in touch with my inner moralizer: Do I correctly understand that you are trying to make an ad-hominem argument?
If I had taken that path, I would either have clear evidence that X is dishonest, or a more interesting conversation if he wasn't; either way would have been better.
When I visualize myself taking the alternative I presently prefer, I also imagine myself stepping back so I would be just out of X's reach. I really don't like physical confrontation.
My original purpose here was give an example, but the point at the end is interesting: if you're going to denounce, there's a small chance that things might escalate, so you need to get clear on what you want to do if things escalate.
One of the great benefits that being in touch with the inner moralizer can have is that can warn you about how what you say will be interpreted by another. It would probably recommend against speaking your first paragraph, for example.
I suspect the inner moralizer would also probably not treat the "You're selfish" as an ad hominem argument. It technically does apply but from within a moral model what is going on isn't of the form of the ad hominem fallacy. It is more of the form:
I'm not saying the above is desirable reasoning - it's annoying and has its own logical probelms. But it is also a different underlying mistake than the typical ad hominem.
If it works that way, I don't want it. My relationship with X has no value to me if the relevant truths cannot be told, and so far as I can tell that first paragraph was both true and relevant at the time.
Now if that had been a coworker with whom I needed ongoing practical cooperation, I would have made some minimal polite response just like I make minimal polite responses to statements about who is winning American Idol.
Okay, there might be some detailed definition of ad hominem that doesn't exactly match the mistake you described. I presently fail to see how the difference is important. The purpose of both ad hominem and your offered interpretation is to use emotional manipulation to get the target (me in this example) to shut up. Would I benefit in some way from making a distinction between the fallacy you are describing and ad hominem?