RobinZ comments on Self-Congratulatory Rationalism - Less Wrong

51 Post author: ChrisHallquist 01 March 2014 08:52AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (395)

Comments (395)

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

Comment author: RobinZ 23 April 2014 09:33:46PM 3 points [-]

The prior comment leads directly into this one: upon what grounds do I assert that an inexpensive test exists to change my beliefs about the rationality of an unfamiliar discussant? I realize that it is not true in the general case that the plural of anecdote is data, and much the following lacks citations, but:

  • Many people raised to believe that evolution is false because it contradicts their religion change their minds in their first college biology class. (I can't attest to this from personal experience - this is something I've seen frequently reported or alluded to via blogs like Slacktivist.)
  • An intelligent, well-meaning, LessWrongian fellow was (hopefully-)almost driven out of my local Less Wrong meetup in no small part because a number of prominent members accused him of (essentially) being a troll. In the course of a few hours conversation between myself and a couple others focused on figuring out what he actually meant, I was able to determine that (a) he misunderstood the subject of conversation he had entered, (b) he was unskilled at elaborating in a way that clarified his meaning when confusion occurred, and (c) he was an intelligent, well-meaning, LessWrongian fellow whose participation in future meetups I would value.
  • I am unable to provide the details of this particular example (it was relayed to me in confidence), but an acquaintance of mine was a member of a group which was attempting to resolve an elementary technical challenge - roughly the equivalent of setting up a target-shooting range with a safe backstop in terms of training required. A proposal was made that was obviously unsatisfactory - the equivalent of proposing that the targets be laid on the ground and everyone shoot straight down from a second-story window - and my acquaintance's objection to it on common-sense grounds was treated with a response equivalent to, "You're Japanese, what would you know about firearms?" (In point of fact, while no metaphorical gunsmith, my acquaintance's knowledge was easily sufficient to teach a Boy Scout merit badge class.)
  • In my first experience on what was then known as the Internet Infidels Discussion Board, my propensity to ask "what do you mean by x" sufficed to transform a frustrated, impatient discussant into a cheerful, enthusiastic one - and simultaneously demonstrate that said discussant's arguments were worthless in a way which made it easy to close the argument.

In other words, I do not often see the case in which performing the tests implied by the principle of charity - e.g. "are you saying [paraphrase]?" - are wasteful, and I frequently see cases where failing to do so has been.

Comment author: Lumifer 24 April 2014 03:19:32PM *  1 point [-]

What you are talking about doesn't fall under the principle of charity (in my interpretation of it). It falls under the very general rubric of "don't be stupid yourself".

In particular, considering that the speaker expresses his view within a framework which is different from your default framework is not an application of the principle of charity -- it's an application of the principle "don't be stupid, of course people talk within their frameworks, not within your framework".

Comment author: RobinZ 24 April 2014 04:48:53PM *  2 points [-]

I might be arguing for something different than your principle of charity. What I am arguing for - and I realize now that I haven't actually explained a procedure, just motivations for one - is along the following lines:

When somebody says something prima facie wrong, there are several possibilities, both regarding their intended meaning:

  • They may have meant exactly what you heard.
  • They may have meant something else, but worded it poorly.
  • They may have been engaging in some rhetorical maneuver or joke.
  • They may have been deceiving themselves.
  • They may have been intentionally trolling.
  • They may have been lying.

...and your ability to infer such:

  • Their remark may resemble some reasonable assertion, worded badly.
  • Their remark may be explicable as ironic or joking in some sense.
  • Their remark may conform to some plausible bias of reasoning.
  • Their remark may seem like a lie they would find useful.*
  • Their remark may represent an attempt to irritate you for their own pleasure.*
  • Their remark may simply be stupid.
  • Their remark may allow more than one of the above interpretations.

What my interpretation of the principle of charity suggests as an elementary course of action in this situation is, with an appropriate degree of polite confusion, to ask for clarification or elaboration, and to accompany this request with paraphrases of the most likely interpretations you can identify of their remarks excluding the ones I marked with asterisks.

Depending on their actual intent, this has a good chance of making them:

  • Elucidate their reasoning behind the unbelievable remark (or admit to being unable to do so);
  • Correct their misstatement (or your misinterpretation - the difference is irrelevant);
  • Admit to their failed humor;
  • Admit to their being unable to support their assertion, back off from it, or sputter incoherently;
  • Grow impatient at your failure to rise to their goading and give up; or
  • Back off from (or admit to, or be proven guilty of) their now-unsupportable deception.

In the first three or four cases, you have managed to advance the conversation with a well-meaning discussant without insult; in the latter two or three, you have thwarted the goals of an ill-intentioned one - especially, in the last case, because you haven't allowed them the option of distracting everyone from your refutations by claiming you insulted them. (Even if they do so claim, it will be obvious that they have no just cause to be.)

I say this falls under the principle of charity because it involves (a) granting them, at least rhetorically, the best possible motives, and (b) giving them enough of your time and attention to seek engagement with their meaning, not just a lazy gloss of their words.

Minor formatting edit.

Comment author: RobinZ 10 June 2014 03:27:47PM 0 points [-]

Belatedly: I recently discovered that in 2011 I posted a link to an essay on debating charitably by pdf23ds a.k.a. Chris Capel - this is MichaelBishop's summary and this is a repost of the text (the original site went down some time ago). I recall endorsing Capel's essay unreservedly last time I read it; I would be glad to discuss the essay, my prior comments, or any differences that exist between the two if you wish.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit