= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
XiXiDu comments on What are you working on? - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (103)
A problem with knowing about such 'laws' is that you'll start perceiving false positives in other people and will hate them for using those techniques against you.
I don't consider the willful maintenance of false illusions to be sustainable way of securing oneself against disillusionment.
I note that if you start hating foks for using those techniques against you then you are probably already ignoring Greene's advice. He consistently advises against taking things personally while also describing just how 'hating people for doing X' is itself a manipulative technique for gaining power.
I don't think that I understand everything that you're saying.
This is a valid concern, but I'm not sure how it relates to this:
Regardless of whether you are vulnerable to such techniques, I don't see why hearing arguments for their existence would harm you. (I can see that it would be a waste of time if they turned out to be useless, but from what little I've read of him, it would be a mistake to gamble on the hypothesis that they will be useless by not reading him at all.)
I said it is a problem, a potential bias that needs be to countered. It was not my intention to suggest that one shouldn't learn about unethical persuasion techniques or the like. I actually ordered the book.
A few times I was accused of, and saw people on LW accusing others of using some kind of 'forbidden' rhetoric against them while I never even heard about such a technique before and which I was sure the person who has been accused never intended to deploy deliberately. This shines a bad light on people who have been accused. The right way would be to kindly remind them of the shortcomings of their argument or that their style of response might be harmful in a discussion with the purpose of dissolving confusion, refining rationality or understanding disagreement.