MixedNuts comments on The problem with too many rational memes - Less Wrong

80 Post author: Swimmer963 19 January 2012 12:56AM

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

Comments (339)

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

Comment author: asparisi 27 January 2012 10:43:12AM 2 points [-]

I can't speak to your own mental processes, but I recently had a conversation with a professor about this. We both agreed that the phrase "agreeing to disagree" was the most condescending notion we had ever heard. That any person with a legitimate disagreement who actually respects and values the other person should want to hear their argument and be open to criticism.

I think that LW may be the sort of environment where you are exposed to people who take this seriously. Where we value Bringing about the crisis of faith. The command to not criticize goes against maybe half of the Rationalist Virtues. Being in an environment where that is encouraged and not dismissed would then make the opposite seem intolerable.

It seems like there are times when the optimal behavior pattern for yourself is to disregard the need for argument and evidence for some practical purpose, but it is a consolation. It is giving something up. And that choice should be painful. I don't think I should want to be good at agreeing not to criticize. I think it should be a fight. If it is easy, then it is easy to compromise when you shouldn't.

Comment author: MixedNuts 27 January 2012 11:09:42AM 1 point [-]

IAWYC. Agreeing to permanently shutting up about a topic is basically admitting one of you can't talk about it without their brain going funny, which isn't flattering. Conditionals like "not now" and "only arguments I haven't heard before" are easier to swallow.