Lumifer comments on Inquiry into community standards - Less Wrong

-19 Post author: ThisSpaceAvailable 06 August 2014 08:22PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (53)

CC Licenced

Comments (53)

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Lumifer 06 August 2014 08:43:37PM 0 points [-]

DRAMA!!!! :-D

Apparently, I am not entitled

Assuming that you are not entitled to anything is usually a good start.

and generally treating me with an utter lack of respect

You are not, in particular, entitled to respect. Respect is earned.

If you perceive that a conversation is devolving into an unproductive shit-flinging exercise you don't want, be agenty and bow out. You have the power.

Comment author: James_Miller 06 August 2014 09:21:17PM 3 points [-]

In a better world respect would be earned, but the default assumption in the U.S. seems to be that you are indeed entitled to respect.

Comment author: ChristianKl 07 August 2014 01:07:44PM 2 points [-]

On LW we try to have a better world. We do have community norms but they are not build around the idea that people are automatically entitled to respect, especially in cases where respect is about withholding.

Part of ThisSpaceAvailable issue is that he expect that LW operates according to social norms that it doesn't operate under. ThisSpaceAvailable thinks that it's helpful to speak about being entitled to something. On LW it's not.

The idea that nice behavior can come from a place that has nothing to do with entitlement isn't in his calculation. In the whole debate about effective altruism we don't speak about entitlement.

My motivation for not calling someone a "dishonest piece of shit" isn't that the person is entitled to not be called that way but that calling him that way doesn't serve an useful purpose. It doesn't maximize utility.

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable comment score below threshold [+] (6 children)

Comment author: ChristianKl 15 August 2014 09:11:34AM 0 points [-]

I think most people, even at Less Wrong, have some sense of moral obligation to act civilly. The idea that anyone who is not insulting me is so refraining purely for personal benefit is rather horrific to me.

This basically means that Buddhism is a very horrific moral framework for you.

The same goes for modern communication theories like nonviolent communication. In nonviolent communication expecting another people to fulfill an obligation is a violent act. The are many areas where people have spent a lot of time to get rid of "must" and "should" and not base their social interactions on those concepts.

Christianity is full of "must" and "should" and uses those tools to get people to act in a moral way. The Social Justice movement where I would expect you to come from is also full of "musts" and "shoulds".

Most of the people on LW don't have that kind of morality. The same goes for most people who meditate. New Agey people who are very kind and loving usually don't act based on "musts" and "shoulds".

I imagine that the idea that there are people who are nice purely because they enjoy it to be nice can come as a huge culture shock to someone out of the Social Justice background.

And if one is coming from a pure utilitarian point of view, what useful purpose does it serve to accuse me of dishonesty?

If you believe that someone is lying, openly saying that he's lying can sometimes have utility.

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 19 August 2014 04:13:52AM * -1 points [-]

This basically means that Buddhism is a very horrific moral framework for you.

I am not aware of any properties of Buddhism that would result in that conclusion.

The same goes for modern communication theories like nonviolent communication. In nonviolent communication expecting another people to fulfill an obligation is a violent act.

That doesn't make any sense. Besides the fact that it is not, in fact, a violent act, and it simply abusing nomenclature to say it is, the clear implicature of referring to something as a "violent act" is to say that one believes that others have an obligation to not do it, and expects them to fulfill that obligation.

The are many areas where people have spent a lot of time to get rid of "must" and "should" and not base their social interactions on those concepts.

And the implicature of that statement is that LW is such an area. LW, where EA is a frequent topic of discussion, and where EY and Harry!MOR constantly refer to following rationalist precepts in moral language. The way you're talking, I'd think I were posting on an Objectivist discussion board, not a Rationalist one.

The Social Justice movement where I would expect you to come from is also full of "musts" and "shoulds".

That is an odd inference. I think people shouldn't be rude and arrogant, therefore you expect that I come from the SJM?

Most of the people on LW don't have that kind of morality.

Then they don't have any morality. Morality, by definition, is concerned with what one should do.

New Agey people who are very kind and loving usually don't act based on "musts" and "shoulds".

Sure they do. They might come up with other labels for the concepts, but they're still acting based on the idea of obligation.

I imagine that the idea that there are people who are nice purely because they enjoy it to be nice can come as a huge culture shock to someone out of the Social Justice background.

I think that you are trying to equivocate between two ideas: "I am nice, and am nice not merely out of a sense of obligation, but because I like being nice" vs. "I am nice, but only because I feel like being nice. If I were to ever to feel like being an asshole, I would be an asshole, without any moral qualms"

It is the latter that you are literally saying, and I am expressing horror at.

If you believe that someone is lying, openly saying that he's lying can sometimes have utility.

That doesn't really answer my question. It simply asserts that an answer may exist.

Comment author: ChristianKl 19 August 2014 09:31:10AM 2 points [-]

That is an odd inference. I think people shouldn't be rude and arrogant, therefore you expect that I come from the SJM?

The interesting thing is that you don't perceive your own behavior in this case to be rude. That means you have a quite different idea of "rude" then a lot of people I know. The way you argued with Gwern is more complex than just "Gwern shouldn't be rude and arrogant" it a bunch of cultural habits that come together. That pattern of social expectations pattern matches in my mind to the social justice community.
The fact that you purposefully chose to avoid gendered pronouns just confirmed my suspicion.

Sure they do. They might come up with other labels for the concepts, but they're still acting based on the idea of obligation.

No. I know a bunch of people in that space who are very clear that they have no responsibility for anything that happens outside of their body. On the other hand they prefer acting out their own needs and desires in an authentic way.

In Buddhism you get bad karma if you kill another person. The Buddhist idea is that you don't go around killing other people because it's in your own self interest not to mess up your own karma. It has nothing to do with having obligations not to kill.

For Cognitive Behavior Therapy there a self study book called: "The Feeling Good Handbook". It calls using should statement for other people a form of "distorted thinking".

I think that you are trying to equivocate between two ideas: "I am nice, and am nice not merely out of a sense of obligation, but because I like being nice" vs. "I am nice, but only because I feel like being nice. If I were to ever to feel like being an asshole, I would be an asshole, without any moral qualms"

It is the latter that you are literally saying, and I am expressing horror at.

Yes, I do mean the later. And those people who follow that philosophy are generally more nice and loving. In the moment where you repress the desire to be an asshole that desire doesn't go away. It's going to come out in some passive aggressive behavior or you might simply snap because the desire becomes too strong.

People who don't disassociate their emotions but act authentically deal with them and thereby learn not to feel like wanting to be an asshole.

I don't trust people who feel like they would like to be an asshole towards me but only act nicely because they perceive an obligation to be nice.

Just to be clear, I don't claim that no person on LW has a mental concept of not reasoning with obligations.

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 26 August 2014 11:46:52PM -2 points [-]

The interesting thing is that you don't perceive your own behavior in this case to be rude.

I certainly don't consider my behavior prior to being accused of dishonesty as being rude. Do you? After I was accused of dishonesty, I still trying to resolve the issue civilly. As I endured more and more abuse from gwern, I became increasingly short with him, but I don't think anything I said was inappropriate, given his behavior, and I find your proposition that it was to be poorly defended with vague, contradictory, and outright false statements.

The fact that you purposefully chose to avoid gendered pronouns just confirmed my suspicion.

Is that so surprising, as to provide significant information?

No. I know a bunch of people in that space who are very clear that they have no responsibility for anything that happens outside of their body.

I'm sure in pretty much any group there will be some who reject the concept of obligation. That doesn't mean that this is the predominant strain of thought.

In Buddhism you get bad karma if you kill another person. The Buddhist idea is that you don't go around killing other people because it's in your own self interest not to mess up your own karma. It has nothing to do with having obligations not to kill.

I find it disingenuous to claim that there is no sense of obligation connected with the concept of karma, especially as conceived in its Western versions. That's like saying that in Christianity, there is no sense of obligation in the concept of sin; Christians avoid sin merely out self interest, wanting to avoid hell.

In the moment where you repress the desire to be an asshole that desire doesn't go away.

So, I shouldn't repress the desire to be an asshole?

People who don't disassociate their emotions but act authentically deal with them and thereby learn not to feel like wanting to be an asshole.

That sound like a bunch of hooey to me. And I have a problem with the word “authentically” being redefined to mean “without inhibitions”.

I don't trust people who feel like they would like to be an asshole towards me but only act nicely because they perceive an obligation to be nice.

What's, there's something dishonest about not being an asshole? Maybe if gwern were to repress his desire to be an asshole long enough to have a civil discussion with me, he would discover that I have legitimate reasons for thinking as I do, and then would lose his motivation for being an asshole. Being a rationalist means not being ruled by System 1, and allowing for errors to be corrected.

Comment author: ChristianKl 27 August 2014 11:34:58AM 1 point [-]

I certainly don't consider my behavior prior to being accused of dishonesty as being rude. Do you?

You behaved in a way that predictable annoyed gwern. I don't care very much about whether or not to apply the word "rude" to that behavior.

I find your proposition that it was to be poorly defended with vague, contradictory, and outright false statements.

Basically you still fail to understand what I'm arguing. Nothing less, nothing more.

Is that so surprising, as to provide significant information?

Confirmations of past predictions are in their nature not surprising. That's why they are called confirmations. When doing pattern matching it's useful to see whether you find confirmations or disconfirmation for the patterns that you see.

I'm sure in pretty much any group there will be some who reject the concept of obligation. That doesn't mean that this is the predominant strain of thought.

I find it disingenuous to claim that there is no sense of obligation connected with the concept of karma, especially as conceived in its Western versions. That's like saying that in Christianity, there is no sense of obligation in the concept of sin; Christians avoid sin merely out self interest, wanting to avoid hell.

There might be some Western people who misunderstand what Buddhists mean with karma, that doesn't change much about the Buddhist concept. A good Christian doesn't sins because God is an authority in which he trusts and God put out rules that the Christian isn't supposed to do certain things. Buddhist thought doesn't have a God that does things like that.

If you jump up gravity pulls you down but that has nothing to do with you having an obligation to be near the ground. Buddhist karma is supposed to work just the same.

So, I shouldn't repress the desire to be an asshole?

I'm not telling you what you should or shouldn't do.

In practice you might pretty soon stop desiring to act like an asshole when you act based on those desires and suffer the costs of acting like an asshole.

Being a rationalist means not being ruled by System 1, and allowing for errors to be corrected.

You are not correcting the error of frequently wanting to be an asshole towards other people.

If I think about what outcome I want to achieve based on enlightened self interest and pick the actions that leads to that outcome I don't have to let myself be ruled by my System 1.

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 07 September 2014 09:55:07PM -1 points [-]

You behaved in a way that predictable annoyed gwern.

It certainly wasn't predicted by me. If your point is that asking people to clarify their position will predictably annoy them, and that's a standard norm here, and that if I want to avoid annoying people, one step to accomplish that would be to not ask people to clarify their statements, well, that really doesn't sound like a discussion board I have much interest in participating in.

I don't care very much about whether or not to apply the word "rude" to that behavior.

Then why did you bring it up? You said "The interesting thing is that you don't perceive your own behavior in this case to be rude."

Basically you still fail to understand what I'm arguing. Nothing less, nothing more.

If you have no concern for whether you are understood, why are you posting? If you are concerned, why do you not try to correct your failure to communicate what you are saying?

Confirmations of past predictions are in their nature not surprising.

Then they are not evidence on which one can make a conclusion. Your conclusion came from some other piece of evidence.

A good Christian doesn't sins because God is an authority in which he trusts and God put out rules that the Christian isn't supposed to do certain things.

And the Christian conflates moral obligation with divine command.

Buddhist thought doesn't have a God that does things like that.

What difference does God make? God puts out rules, karma puts out rules. God can say "should" all He wants, but those are irrelevant until someone adopts the "I should follow God" rule. Christians follow the rules that they believe God has put forth because they believe that they have a moral obligation to do so, and that moral obligation can't come from God, because if it did come from God, it would just be another one of God's rules, and what reason would anyone have to follow the "You should follow Me" rule?

If you jump up gravity pulls you down but that has nothing to do with you having an obligation to be near the ground. Buddhist karma is supposed to work just the same.

I don't believe that Buddhists believe that karma is simply an arbitrary rule that doesn't reflect morality.

You are not correcting the error of frequently wanting to be an asshole towards other people.

"Error" refers to actions, not to emotions.

If I think about what outcome I want to achieve based on enlightened self interest and pick the actions that leads to that outcome I don't have to let myself be ruled by my System 1.

But that would, in my understanding of what you're saying, not be being authentic.

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable comment score below threshold [+] (3 children)

Comment author: Lumifer 06 August 2014 09:12:11PM 5 points [-]

Well, then since you have not "earned" my not calling you a dishonest piece of shit, it should be perfectly fine for me to call you that, right?

Sure, as long as you can handle the consequences.

Or is there a certain amount of respect that is the default, and does not have to be "earned"?

The default is a neutral position, no respect but no disrespect either.

It's common to advance a certain amount of respect on credit, so to say, but it can be withdrawn very quickly if it becomes evident that this advance is... inappropriate.

but that doesn't sound like a very pleasant place to be

If you look at the top right corner of your browser window, there is probably a little X there. Just click it.

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 06 August 2014 09:29:52PM * 0 points [-]

The default is a neutral position, no respect but no disrespect either.

You're quibbling between "disrespectful" and "lack of respect".

If you look at the top right corner of your browser window, there is probably a little X there. Just click it.

The issue at hand is whether Less Wrong aspires to be anything more than a clique that panders to the in-group and provides no recourse to those who feel marginalized, other than leaving. I see you vote "no".

Comment author: Lumifer 07 August 2014 12:25:24AM * -2 points [-]

no recourse to those who feel marginalized

If you want respect, go earn it.

Frankly speaking, whining about feeling marginalized on a pseudonymous internet forum isn't helping you with that.

Lumifer comments on Inquiry into community standards - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (53)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (53)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login