= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Spurlock comments on Help Fund Lukeprog at SIAI - 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 (276)
(I disapprove of downvoting the parent (which I just found at '-2'). It continues the same conversation as the previous Silas's posts, pointing out what does look like rationalization. If raising a possibility of interlocutor's rationalizing in defense of their position is considered too rude to tolerate, we'll never fix such problems.)
I suspect that most of the downvotes came from the very last sentence, which struck me as more than a little snarky. "Cheers" might not be necessary, but it is a gesture of politeness and was probably added in an attempt to convey a positive tone (which is important but somewhat tricky in text). I wouldn't say "not necessary" if someone held the door for me, even if it is obviously true.
Agree with you that the actual substance of the post was in no way downvote-worthy.
Because "signing" comments is not customary here, doing so signals a certain aloofness or distance from the community, and thus can easily be interpreted as a passive-aggressive assertion of high status. (Especially coming from Luke, who I find emits such signals rather often -- he may want to be aware of this in case it's not his intention.)
I interpret Silas's "Not necessary" as roughly "Excuse me, but you're not on Mount Olympus writing an epistle to the unwashed masses on LW down below".
Second this.
No. I am very confident the intention was to signal that Luke was not being emotionally affected by the intense criticism for the purpose of appearing to be leader type material, which is substantially not aloofness from the community.
It's not a convincing signal primarily because it's idiosyncracy highlights it for analysis, but I still think the above holds.
Or, in another words, signaling high status -- just like I said.
It may not be aloofness, but it certainly is distance (I used two words for a reason); a leader is, necessarily, separated in some way from those who are led.
I saw lukeprog's signing messages as minor noise and possibly a finger macro developed long ago, so I stopped seeing the signature.
I'd be dubious about assuming one can be certain (where's the Bayesianism?) about what someone else is intending to signal, especially considering that it's doctrine here that one can't be certain of even one's own motivations. How much less certain should one be about other people's?
I would add some further uncertainty if one feels very sure about the motivation driving a behavior that's annoying.
I just looked through several pages of lukeprog's most recent comments, and the only ones that were signed were direct replies to SilasBarta.
Which could just mean that he feels the need to counter hostility with extra friendliess.
That's interesting. Thanks for checking. I still have no idea what lukeprog intended, but my finger macro theory is clearly wrong.
vs.
I didn't read komponisto as necessarily or primarily talking about consciously intended signals.
I get annoyed by people who "sign" posts in the text like that, especially when they do it specifically on replies to me. It really isn't necessary. I'm interested in substance, not pleasantries, as I was three months ago when I asked how the mini-camp was a success.
Hmmm. Fair enough. Didn't mean anything by it.
" I'm interested in substance, not pleasantries"
You are so right. Fuck being nice as it is merely a tool for the irrational.
Sign me up.