= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jiro comments on Breaking the vicious cycle - 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 (125)
XiXiDu should discount this suggestion because it seems to be motivated reasoning.
I would totally 100% agree with this if XiXiDu had not himself proposed to do MORE than this in the OP, or had not himself mentioned ill health effects.
I don't see why this was modded down. Saying that someone should stop posting things that you disagree with, because it is bad for their health, when you are very transparently motivated to not want them to post things you disagree with because you don't like seeing things you disagree with, is a prime example of motivated reasoning. It's not as if you have made a general policy of giving XiXiDu advice on his health.
About the only way that this could have been any clearer an example would have been if you said "You should give me your car, because giving me your car is good for your health".
It's really difficult to write about this in a way that doesn't seem motivated. When I wrote my reply, I rewrote the ending three times, because I always had a feeling that it will seem like a different thing than I want it to be.
The fact is, if I had a magical pill that would make XiXiDu's health problems go away permanently, I would give it to him, even if I knew that as a consequence he will just continue in his attacks with restored strength. It might not be a wise thing to do, but it's what I would do anyway. But another fact is that I don't have such pill.
I was aware that suggesting to XiXiDu to make his health a priority will seem motivated. Adding a disclaimer that I don't mean it that way, seemed to only make things worse, because mentioning things, even in negative, makes them more visible. At the end I decided for the "virtue of silence".
The situation is such that what is good for XiXiDu's health also happens to be good for MIRI's PR. In theory, this should be a good news, because it allows a "win/win" solution. It doesn't feel so, though. There is already a criticism of XiXiDu online, and he feels that if he removes his attacks, but the criticism of him stays, he was cheated in the deal. On the other hand, the criticism written by XiXiDu was already seen and quoted by many people, so even if he would remove it all now, some damage is already done; so removing all criticism of him (even if all parties could coordinate on this move) would feel like too much. So each side probably feels that their "win" is not as big as they would deserve. The mutually perfectly satisfying solution is not possible, because some damage was already done, and accepting an imperfect solution feels like a status loss to a human. This is a difficult task.
And it would probably be better to negotiate the conditions of the treaty without a written record, because negotiating publicly amplifies the status concerns, as each party is aware that their replies could be used by observers.
I didn't downvote you, but you're wrong. I don't particularly want XiXiDu to go away, and I haven't felt offended by his posts. It's simply an option that he should consider, given his description of his health problems. If I wanted him to leave, I would have urged him to leave, not suggested that he consider the option.
I can't read minds. So if you say you meant it, I will concede that you meant it.
I hope you understand, however, how it sounds exactly like what someone would say when their primary motivation is to shut an opponent up. Giving health advice out of the blue on such a subject as this is very unusual.
Yet you spoke with the assumption that you could, and when many observers do not share your mind-reading conclusions. Hopefully in the future when you choose to do that you will not fail to see why you get downvotes. It's a rather predictable outcome.
It's such a plausible conclusion that it makes sense to draw, even if it turns out to be mistaken. Absent the ability to read minds and absent an explicit statement, we have to go on what is likely.
The best we can say is that it is a sufficiently predictable conclusion. Had the author not underestimated inferential distance he could easily have pre-empted your accusation with an additional word or two.
Nevertheless, it is still a naive (and incorrect) conclusion to draw based on the available evidence. Familiarity with human psychology (in general), internet forum arguing (in general), XiXiDu in particular or even a complete read of the opening thread would suggest that the advice you dismiss is clearly, obviously and overwhelmingly good advice for XiXIDu. You have also completely misread the style of dominance manoeuvre Anatoly was employing. Petty sniping of the kind you suggest wouldn't naturally fit with the more straightforward aggressively condescending style of the comment. ie. Even when interpreting Anatoly's motives in the worst possible light your interpretation is still sloppy.
'We' need to go on the expected consequences of our choices. Your choice was to accuse someone of questionable motives and use that as a premise to give advice for how to handle a serious mental health issue. You should expect that your behaviour will be negatively received by those who:
The advice is good enough (and generalizable enough) that the correlation to the speaker's motives is more likely to be coincidental than causal.
Addicts tend to be hurt by exposing themselves to their addiction triggers.