= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
OrphanWilde comments on When considering incentives, consider the incentives of all parties - 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 (95)
No, they didn't.
User time manages to point out the inconsistency of the scenario. This isn't something that happens in a timespan of 50 years without there being an cause that's the OP left out.
A person who actually focuses on the scenario as presented instead of focusing on the transfer to other scenario's like blacks or women sees that problem with the scenario. The fact that he sees it suggest him not being mindkilled.
Dagon argued against thinking in political tribal terms in the first place. Saying that you oppose categorizing people into two distinct nonoverlapping groups is no sign of being mindkilled but a reasonable argument. It's no sign that he's motivated by feeling aligned with either of the groups.
I wouldn't expect gjm who has general liberal political views to criticize a scenario that advocates liberal political ideas because he's mindkilled. He manages to critizise it despite it being a scenario for "his tribe".
buybuydandavis points out that the essay isn't good writing because it doesn't start out by stating it's thesis. That might be motivated by political impulses but can also simply be motivated by a preference for clear writing.
Slider also made a point about writing style. The fact that you don't address an argument about writing on it's merits but judge it as mindkilled could be explained by tribal impulsives.
My post on the other hand addresses what you are writing and asks for the evidence that you have for your beliefs. That's a standard rhetorical move. Engaging in it is no signal for being mindkilled.
No, but suggesting I am "influenced by tribal motivations" while asking for evidence is. You're mixing an insult with a request for information; you've already decided I am wrong.
As for evidence, it is provided by the exceptionally poor quality of the criticisms. Fighting the hypothetical, fighting the hypothetical, fighting the hypothetical, suspicion of hidden purpose, a claim that an article whose title is its thesis statement has no thesis statement, and another suspicion of hidden purpose. There are real criticisms to be made, and their absence is quite conspicuous given the strongly negative tone of the commentary.
Real-world hypotheticals are often made with hidden purposes in mind. It may end up being a good idea to fight the hypothetical, when faced with the tactic of stating claims about real things as "hypotheticals" in order to get the audience to avoid questioning them.
Simply: I disagree.
Given your own charge that other people are mindkilled it's interesting that you see that charge as an insult and not as a factual description. I didn't intent to insult, but to state a hypothesis. A hypothesis that I stated with the word "maybe" to mark uncertainty. Don't generalize from one example.
Stating a hypothesis does not mean I decided that believe a certain outcome. It just put forward a point about which I intent to communicate.
The opposite of fighting the hypothetical is to avoid critical thinking and not challenge it's assumptions.
The problem with the hypothetical is that it ignores how beliefs in a society actually form. That's a process that's vital to the topic at hand. At a core it assumes that a society has beliefs about a war hold 50 years ago that have nothing to do with propaganda.
It's a point that I might made irrespectable of whether the story I'm reading favors a group that I support politically.
What does "conspicuous" mean here? That you should treat people as being an enemy tribe? That's tribal thinking.
It's not thinking though the actual concent of the post.
It is a claim of irrationality; yes, it should be taken as insulting.
I hypothesize you may be an idiot. (Do you see the issue?)
Reversed stupidity isn't intelligence. Something can be poor rationality, and its opposite can be poor rationality as well.
No it doesn't. It makes it clear that there's motivated reasoning - and thus propaganda - going on on both sides of the equation.
No. It means there are clear and obvious problems with the article that COULD have been criticized, but weren't, in favor of dumb tribal things to criticize.