= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwern comments on Skill: The Map is Not the Territory - 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 (174)
I don't like arguing with angry or growling people, so I'm going to stop here.
You've just gained an immense amount of my respect, which an upvote alone could not properly convey.
Gwern would have gained more respect from me if he withdrew with tact rather than making an exit in a way that also scores a point and reinforces the frame that Alicorn is behaving irrationally*. This doesn't mean I am saying gwern's approach was somehow inappropriate (I'm actively saying nothing either way). Instead I'm saying that being able to withdraw without losing face or causing the other to lose face demonstrates strong social competence as well as the willingness to cooperate with others. Exiting with a pointed tap-out does demonstrate wisdom and a certain amount of restraint but it is still crude and neutral at best when it comes to respect for the other and their emotions.
* Standard caveat for all my comments: Unless explicitly stated I am not making any claim about sincerity or intent when I talk about what effect or social role a given action has.
Yes. It would probably also involve expressing agreement with part of what Alicorn said (ideally part that he could sincerely agree with) and perhaps paraphrasing another part back with an elaboration. That seems to work sometimes.
No, I don't (where all the negatives add up to agreement with this quote). That is just what would gain the immense respect for social grace (and plain grace).
Tapping out is all well and good, sure. Doing it because people have emotions is worthy of immense respect? Why?
This might be a good place to point out that LessWrong's use of "tapping out" strikes me as bizarre. On LessWrong, this term is used to represent withdrawing from a discussion because you think further participation might be unproductive-- in the martial arts, from whence it was purportedly adopted, this term typically signifies "I am about to be seriously injured/incapacitated and I concede."
I suppose an uncharitable eye might view the two in the same way, but I think the LessWrong term isn't meant to carry the attitude of surrender that the phrase "tapping out" generally does, and thus that a different term should be selected.
Yes, that's exactly what "tapping out" means. Even dropping win/lose from the metaphor, the connotation is that the discussion is being abandoned because it's too painful. I'd rather describe it as "bowing out" if someone decides that it's wisest not to waste time or needlessly inflame another.
Well, the LessWrong wiki specifically says that "tapping out doesn't mean accepting defeat," which I think would generally be considered false in other contexts. If you're agreeing with this, sorry for belaboring the point, but I'm not entirely sure how to parse your post.
"Bowing out" definitely seems like an appropriate replacement.
That's a good point. I hadn't paid much attention to the origin of the phrase (and haven't used it), but that is exactly what we do to concede when doing Jiu-Jitsu.
I didn't think the connotations to that one were any less.
Perhaps "stepping out," then?
I don't think any bit of jargon is going to hide the fact that it's a little humiliating to leave a discussion having failed to move your interlocutor. Someone who isn't humiliated at having laid out all their reasons to no effect is probably arguing in bad faith.
I'm not so sure. If I have laid out all my reasons to no effect, that could simply mean my opponent is unusually obstinate rather than that my arguments are unusually poor.
"Having more free time" and "being more stubborn" shouldn't win arguments, but they do in real life where arguments are mostly about status, so we translate the status dynamics online.
Yeah. I agree with you. Wiki needs correction (although sometimes technically imprecise language can adjust attitudes better than precision).
(As for me, the main reason I do that is when I suspect I am being mind-killed and as a result a large fraction of what I would be going to say if I continued the discussion would be bullshit.)
Emotions are part of rational process, but you aren't rational in discussion when you're in the grip of a strong, immediate emotion. Since you have the advantage in an argument when you remain calm, it is worthy of respect to forgo that advantage and disengage.
I hardly see this line of inquiry ending well for anyone, so I decline to participate.