= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
t-E comments on The noncentral fallacy - the worst argument in the world? - 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 (1742)
Well, some recent hindsight analysis (during the eridu radical-feminist debacle) allowed me to notice that it seems highly likely that nearly all female feminists I've encountered in person with common knowledge of such were mostly of the kind that had one or few strong very bad near-type personal experiences with men, or many small but memorable such near-type experiences. The kinds you'd probably expect from a stereotypical scenario of "The Father is Master and Law of the House" or a poor waitress working late shifts at a café on the same street corner as a strip club.
So in my case I probably wasn't dealing only with "feminists", but at the same time with individuals taken with a widespread personal fear or anger towards men, in nearly all the cases that produced these kinds of strong reactions. This might be due to statistical coincidence (not that particularly unlikely) or to some behavior that causes other types of feminists to not identify themselves as such when dealing with me, or to some other cause.
It may very well be that the A scenario you describe actually does happen to me sometimes, but with the other participant(s) simply not identifying themselves as feminists at all. If so, I either never ran them through my mental model of feminists for a pattern-matching, reverse-ideological-turing-test thinghy, or my model is sufficiently incorrect/imprecise that they actually failed said test.
I kind of suspected this to be the case, because if the contrary were true, the feminist movement as a whole would be spectacularly self-hindering and shooting itself in the foot constantly, since such behavior as I've observed would basically cause very destructive conflict and wouldn't actually help further their goals.
I don't know that 'debacle' and there seems to be a lot of content that could be part of it (you meant something in the comments of this same article apparently). If you think it is very relevant, i'd be grateful for one or several specific links to start from.
Where can i find out what "near-type" means here? This appears important enough to postpone my reply to this part.
I didn't mean it in that way. And i think the feminist movement, as a whole or in part, doesn't necessarily want to be lightly told by men what behaviour is or is not "furthering their goals" =P
(This instance seems to me like one in which you did so lightly, because it didn't seem highly relevant / on-topic.)
It refers to "near-mode," which is jargon in construal-level theory for "construed concretely." So in context, it means direct and involving personal experience, as opposed to reading or discussing abstractly.
Robin Hanson applies construal-level theory speculatively in numerous posts at Overcoming Bias. A concise summary of construal-level theory can be found in my posting "Construal-level theory: Matching linguistic register to the case's granularity.".
Thank you. For now i'll work with your explanation for this context specifically.
It's difficult, because many of eridu's comments were "deleted" by site mods who very much wanted that discussion to stop. I suspect your best bet is to browse their user page (where the comments remain visible) if you're really interested, but roughly speaking: eridu self-identified as a radical feminist who endorsed dismantling patriarchy, and ended up in a very confrontational series of exchanges with several LW contributors that were widely considered low-value.
I certainly considered them low value but to be fair the reception was mixed. Some went as far as to say it was the best and most informative discussion of any related concepts that they had seen on lesswrong. This confused some people but there was definitely a non-trivial minority who valued it.
(nods) Yes, this is absolutely true, and worth saying explicitly. Thanks.
Thank you. This contains some very interesting parts.
Near mode, Far mode - In rough vulgarization, Near mode is immediate observation and sensation, Far mode is abstract knowledge of something.
As for that last, yeah. I was merely spelling out my own reasoning. Saying something like that is exactly the kind of behavior I'd expect to cause the kind of reactions / treatment / behavior I've described in earlier posts.
Thanks.
It's good to know that you know that. Your wording here might mildly suggest that you disagree with such reactions to that behaviour on some level, but i might just be imagining that. And either way it's not of much relevance.
Nice catch there.
Yes, I do believe that the reaction is sub-optimal, and that there are better ways to handle these cases that would apparently further their cause faster. However, my model of all this is incomplete, so I'm most likely not entirely right, and I'd probably never voice that opinion outside of a context like this one.
Note that I don't think the reaction is "wrong" or "negative", but ISTM that there are probably other alternatives with similar cost and better utilitarian results.
Your own reaction seems like a good example of a much more productive reaction, but it does have some rather limiting contextual requirements.
Took me until after i'd read it the second or third time, but once it's recognised, it seems fairly intuitive to me that it might have been intended.
I'm not sure i understand which reaction you mean. And my best (only?) guess on the contextual requirements is the context of this conversation on this platform (or: community), but i'm even less certain here, so i would like to ask you to please make both points more explicit.