Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

insufferablejake comments on Sensual Experience - Less Wrong

13 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 21 December 2008 12:56AM

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

Comments (84)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: insufferablejake 19 January 2013 06:33:39PM 0 points [-]

In case of a down vote on something that seems reasonable and/or is non-inflammatory, it'd be informative if someone left a note as to why it was being down voted.

Comment author: wedrifid 20 January 2013 01:55:31PM 6 points [-]

In case of a down vote on something that seems reasonable

Perhaps it merely indicates that the voter doesn't agree about the reasonableness. I neither voted on nor---until now---read your comment but I do note that in general many people write things that they (evidently) consider reasonable but which I consider utter nonsense and other have vehemently disagreed with (what seem to me) to be reasonable statements by myself and others. Neither objective reasonableness (to the extent that such a thing exists) nor the belief of the author will force another to perceive it as reasonable.

and/or is non-inflammatory

Not especially inflammatory, true. I note however that you opened with a contradiction, "No.". That has a clear meaning of asserting the falsity of its parent. If the parent is (perceived to be) correct then a negation may be considered sufficient to downvote the comment with or without reading the remainder.

it'd be informative if someone left a note as to why it was being down voted.

This is a true statement. Another true statement is "Writing declarations of downvotes can be perceived as a nuisance by third parties and promote emnity or at very least dowvnoting by the downvoted author. This is a negative consequence for the downvoter, who is not obliged to abandon his or her anonymity if they don't chose to."

Comment author: insufferablejake 20 January 2013 03:09:08PM 0 points [-]

Fair enough.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 20 January 2013 02:18:17PM *  4 points [-]

(I downoted both comments. OrphanWilde's assertion was mostly meaningless and given without substantiation/clarification, and your reply engaged it on object level instead of pointing that out (or silently downvoting), sustaining a flawed mode of discussion. Being "non-inflammatory" is an insufficiently strict standard, a conversation should be sane.)

Comment author: insufferablejake 20 January 2013 03:24:29PM *  0 points [-]

OrphanWilde's assertion was mostly meaningless and given without substantiation/clarification

I agree.

your reply engaged it on object level instead of pointing that out (or silently downvoting), sustaining a flawed mode of discussion.

Can you elaborate what you mean by 'object level'?

Also, I am kind of perplexed here -- you don't approve of my deciding to react to a seemingly vague statement, which was made with the intent of getting OrphanWilde to perhaps clarify himself? I realize that I phrased my reply badly, starting with a negation was counter productive, but still.

Let me clarify here, I do not care so much about the down vote, as much as I do about being engaged in a conversation.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 20 January 2013 06:12:14PM *  4 points [-]

Can you elaborate what you mean by 'object level'?

Someone asserts a confused statement whose meaning is unclear. An example of an "object level" response it to make up an interpretation for that statement with a particular meaning, and immediately engage that interpretation (for example, by giving an argument for modifying some of its details).

This has two immediate problems. First, the interpretation that you've made up isn't necessarily the intended one, and in fact no clear intended interpretation may exist, in the sense that the original statement wasn't constructed to communicate a clear idea, but was to a significant extent a confabulation. This may result in talking past each other, thinking of different things, and in simple cases may lead to an argument about definitions. Second, the fact that the original statement was confusing is itself significant and worthy of attention. It may mean that you lack knowledge of context or training necessary to interpret it, or that the person making the statement needs to improve their communication effort or skills, or that they need to think more carefully to make sure that there is an actual idea that is being described. These problems have little to do with the topic of discussion, hence "not object level".

(Even worse, an "object level response" may itself fail to reflect on any particular idea.)

Comment author: MugaSofer 21 January 2013 02:25:20PM *  -2 points [-]

On the other hand, asking for clarification or accusing the other party of talking confused nonsense bring their own problems.

I generally reply on the object level, but note that I'm unsure if I parsed their statement correctly, so they can clarify in their next comment if I misinterpreted.