thescoundrel comments on In Defense of Tone Arguments - Less Wrong

24 Post author: OrphanWilde 19 July 2012 07:48PM

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

Comments (172)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: thescoundrel 19 July 2012 09:13:25PM 4 points [-]

A rationalist who doesn't consider the effects of tone when attempting to effect a change in someone's thinking is not dealing in reality. There is a reason Becker's Rules have to be asked for and agreed to, even among rationalists- we are not built to automatically separate tone from content, and there are times when even the most thoughtful of us are personally vulnerable to a harsh tone. We tend to simplify to "two Beysians updating on evidence", but in reality, we have to consider the best way to transmit that message, as well as the outcome of that transmission. Human language is not tightly controlled code- when a change in tone is equivalent to a change in meaning, ignoring tone is the same as ignoring all parentheses in code.

Comment author: thescoundrel 20 July 2012 05:30:51AM 6 points [-]

Ahh, that wonderfully embarrassing moment when you realize your small group has been calling Crocker's rules by the wrong name for almost year.

Comment author: wedrifid 20 July 2012 05:14:12AM *  3 points [-]

There is a reason Becker's Rules have to be asked for and agreed to, even among rationalists

Becker's Rules? Surprisingly relevant.

"I want you to consider my feelings."

"Bah, this is totally unworkable!"

Comment author: TimS 19 July 2012 11:49:09PM 2 points [-]

Crocker's rules?