Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

lukeprog comments on Are Deontological Moral Judgments Rationalizations? - Less Wrong

37 Post author: lukeprog 16 August 2011 04:40PM

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

Comments (168)

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

Comment author: lukeprog 16 August 2011 06:20:27PM 4 points [-]

Agreed. This problem has already been encountered and I have updated my wording in the original post in response.

Comment author: lessdazed 16 August 2011 07:12:39PM *  2 points [-]

You did your best to maximally frame all problems as being on the reader's end during your exchange with Alicorn, during which you did not admit to making any contribution to misunderstanding. You evaded all criticisms about tone by disparaging them as unimportant, and despite the short length of your first exchange about the post (cut short by the person you annoyed) you managed to squeak in "I already responded to this in my last comment."

Now that we have moved beyond the first person's criticism, you can begin avoiding blame by redirecting it in earnest; if the post was misinterpreted by the reader (with no help from the author), those mistakes have already been corrected, in what amounts to the distant past, please see previous discussion. And the author and critic are on equal footing as erring beings, the author for having once made a mistake, (long since corrected), and the reader for not noticing the correction of the mistake.

Saying "This problem has already been encountered" and linking to another criticism of your post in which the legal angle in general is not named as a problem is an extravagant way to avoid admitting you contributed to a problem. The legal issue didn't have to be squarely addressed there for you to resort to passing off error like a hot potato. (Not "I see the problem", not "I encountered the problem", "the problem has been encountered", in the passive voice and the past perfect.)

And superfluously saying kind and social things like "thanks for the feedback" hones the passive-aggressiveness you wield and does not simply act as a pile of merits to weigh against your sins.

I'm sorry I've totally neglected your recent universal requests for positive feedback. I'm not really good with those or these things. I don't get along with Alicorn because I'm boorish. You seem to not get along with her because of a particular synergy - your defensiveness and self justifications trigger her sensitivities to being attacked and taking offense, which trigger your defensiveness...maybe you can tell me how to fix my problems, though it seems hard to correct for not knowing what to say and when. But your problem with her is a feedback cycle in which you are a participant, so cut it out and that will be the end of it!

There has to be a better way to handle perfectionism. You could have expanding circles of people to whom you submit stages of rough drafts, not everything has to emerge perfect and ready to be maximally defended. I don't know.

Good luck to us all. I hope you get lots of positive feedback soon, you deserve it.

P.S. Do not thank me for this feedback. 1) If you do, it will be passive aggressive. 2) If you do, people will simply upvote this comment.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 16 August 2011 07:42:17PM *  3 points [-]

I think there's something important to say here... Like, maybe a list of bad things that happen when you start thinking of persons as the primary bearers of justification, rather than beliefs or actions. You seem way too focused on whether or not Luke as a person is justified... like, if you could think things through from first principles, this wouldn't be how you would approach problems like this... bleh. Sorry, that's really enigmatic, but it's important to mention.

Comment author: lessdazed 18 August 2011 07:00:36AM *  3 points [-]

I think there's something important to say here

I'm not sure if this means "I have something to say to you, it is the following:" or "I think you said some things that were good to say, (and by implication, you said some things that were not good to say,) and I will now paraphrase the good part of what you said as I would have said it:"

like, if you could think things through from first principles, this wouldn't be how you would approach problems like this

Same issue as above, I can't tell if you are trying to say something to me (and if so, what) or if you are offering an alternative to have said instead of what I did say.

Comment author: lukeprog 20 August 2011 05:30:51PM 1 point [-]

My 'thanks for your feedback' to jsalvatier was not passive-aggressive but genuine. John's feedback genuinely helped change my approach on Less Wrong, and made me more aware of how I am appearing to others. Plausibly, he got through to me because I spent a week with John in person and have a lot of respect for him.

Comment author: lessdazed 20 August 2011 06:03:35PM 2 points [-]

That's good.