= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Salemicus comments on Narcissistic Contrarianism - 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 (29)
I'm going over the verbs trying to locate what you're referring to as an irregular verb. Am I making a mistake? Does "irregular verb" have some metaphorical connotation I'm not aware of?
You seem to follow with 3 likely different interpretations of the same behavior. If I understand it correctly, that is kind of interesting, I'll warrant
So you have a criteria for being skeptical of (I won't say "explaining away", which would be presumptuous) my arguments having to do with the style of my argument rather than its content. That is good - I think we all should have such criteria, unless we plan to intellectually take apart all of the thousands upon thousands of assertions that cross our paths.
I have been proposing one such. You just proposed another, one which is generally pretty good.
Once you criticize something as "to explain away" most of what else you say is apt to be redundant.
Yes.
No, I am criticising the content of your argument. You are calling for a refusal to engage with arguments you specifically concede are apparently persuasive ("dazzle their fans"), because they might lead to "unproductive avenues of thought", based on an evidence-free assertion that their originators just want to be different. You provide no basis for distinguishing "narcissistic contrarians" from people who sincerely take non-mainstream positions. You do not have special insight into the internal minds of your opponents.
I'm content to engage with Camille Paglia and Nicholas Taleb and conclude they're wrong. I don't need to go further and engage in armchair psychoanalysis of people I've never met.
Part of your misunderstanding, I think, is to assume I have an "opponent". I've read 3 of Taleb's books, and will probably read him again -- maybe some of the more technical stuff he puts on his facebook page, when I'm willing to work hard enough to understand it, but sometimes I take him with a grain of salt, or think to myself "Oh I wish you wouldn't do that". I think I've read enough of Paglia (which isn't much) for a lifetime, though maybe I'll be proven wrong some day -- the possibility of proving myself wrong just isn't enough of a priority to make me pick up another article of hers at present.
Neither are you an enemy, and in this whole exchange, I've learned two useful concepts, one of them from you, so thanks.
No, I wouldn't call that ("dazzle...) a concession that the arguments are "apparently persuasive", whatever that means, and "calling for a refusal to engage with arguments" sounds like a sort of high drama that I'd very seldom if ever engage in.