= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver comments on How do you interpret your "% positive"? - 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 (51)
That is similar to the bike shed observation I noted.
One of the things I have noticed about your posting style is that you don't seem to go out of your way to prevent or reverse misunderstandings. Simply telling someone that they are wrong, and telling them to work it out on their own, is not particularly persuasive, and you should not expect it to either be persuasive or earn you status.
Stating negative claims about others carefully and politely does much to improve others' reaction to them. In particular, the many contrarians on LW dramatically increase the value of carefulness.
This is especially amusing in light of the recent reverse situation between Phil and Eliezer in a recent rerun.
Can you give a link or a title? I don't remember what it was.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/5v/church_vs_taskforce/44x
(I didn't vote on those posts, though I did comment already)
But I do go out of my way to respond to comments and correct misunderstandings, or correct my post if they have found an error in it, more than most posters on this site do. And I try to anticipate prevent misunderstandings; it just isn't possible.
I think there is a perceptible difference between correcting and reversing misunderstandings. Is that the impression you have?
Can you elaborate?
Much of the difference that I see is attitude, but some of it is tactics. The attitude difference is important for status reasons: others may be much more willing to listen to a "let's figure out what went wrong" than a "listen harder." The tactics difference is in trying out more angles of approach, as well as trying to figure out how what you said sounds to others, like you've done recently. Changing presentation errors is often as useful as changing factual errors.
Would more be helpful, or do you think that's enough?