= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl 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, 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.
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.