Terminology Thread (or "name that pattern")

sixes_and_sevens

I think there's widespread assent on LW that the sequences were pretty awesome. Not only do they elucidate upon a lot of useful concepts, but they provide useful shorthand terms for those concepts which help in thinking and talking about them. When I see a word or phrase in a sentence which, rather than doing any semantic work, simply evokes a positive association to the reader, I have the useful handle of "applause light" for it. I don't have to think "oh, there's one of those...you know...things where a word isn't doing any semantic work but just evokes a positive association the reader". This is a common enough pattern that having the term "applause light" is tremendously convenient.

I would like this thread to be a location where people propose such patterns in comments, and respondents determine (a) whether this pattern actually exists and / or is useful; (b) whether there is already a term or sufficiently-related concept that adequately describes it; and (c) what a useful / pragmatic / catchy term might be for it, if none exists already.

I would like to propose some rules suggested formatting to make this go more smoothly.

(ETA: feel free to ignore this and post however you like, though)

When proposing a pattern, include a description of the general case as well as at least one motivating example. This is useful for establishing what you think the general pattern is, and why you think it matters. For instance:

General Case:

When someone uses a term without any thought to what that term means in context, but to elicit a positive association in their audience.

Motivating Example:

I was at a conference where someone said AI development should be "more democratic". I didn't understand what they meant in context, and upon quizzing them, it turned out that they didn't either. It seems to me that they just used the word "democratic" as decoration to make the audience attach positive feelings to what they were saying.

When I think about it, this seems like quite a common rhetorical device.

When responding to a pattern, please specify whether your response is:

(a) wrangling with the definition, usefulness or existence of the pattern

(b) making a claim that a term or sufficiently-related concept exists that adequately describes it

(c) suggesting a completely fresh, hitherto-uncoined name for it

(d) other

(ETA: or don't, of you don't want to)

Obviously, upvote suggestions that you think are worthy. If this post takes off, I may do a follow-up with the most upvoted suggestions.

I would like to propose some rules suggested formatting to make this go more smoothly.

(ETA: feel free to ignore this and post however you like, though)

General Case:

When someone uses a term without any thought to what that term means in context, but to elicit a positive association in their audience.

Motivating Example:

I was at a conference where someone said AI development should be "more democratic". I didn't understand what they meant in context, and upon quizzing them, it turned out that they didn't either. It seems to me that they just used the word "democratic" as decoration to make the audience attach positive feelings to what they were saying.

When I think about it, this seems like quite a common rhetorical device.

When responding to a pattern, please specify whether your response is:

(a) wrangling with the definition, usefulness or existence of the pattern

(b) making a claim that a term or sufficiently-related concept exists that adequately describes it

(c) suggesting a completely fresh, hitherto-uncoined name for it

(d) other

(ETA: or don't, of you don't want to)

Obviously, upvote suggestions that you think are worthy. If this post takes off, I may do a follow-up with the most upvoted suggestions.

I asked for metrics, not tests.

Tests yield metrics. More quibbling. Good job there convincing me you're asking questions in good faith. I can really see that you've bothered to read anything on the topic.

You made a claim. The burden of proof is on you to support it. “Go read a book” is not a valid citation.

Yes, it is, when you're criticizing an entire century-old well-developed field with an abundance of materials online. At this point, the burden is not on the person talking about intelligence. Go educate yourself, stop wasting my time with your captious quibbling about whether 'tests' are 'metrics' (to point out your latest crap); if you actually cared about the topic, you wouldn't be saying any of this, you'd be reading Jensen's textbooks or hell, even a Wikipedia article.

So you think that asking questions to clarify a position is “bullshit”?

Given all your previous comments, yes.

So, in other words, if a large fraction is additive, then a large fraction is additive. Do you not understand what the word “circular” means?

I see you didn't understand the point of that. Think a little harder, and also think a little bit about what circular arguments are. (Hint: they don't take the form 'A, therefore, A'.)

You're arguing for a position by contradiction, but your contradiction is only one alternative hypothesis. That is fallacious. Your responses show you don't even understand what my objection is, and therefore all your attempts at refutation fall flat.

Sigh.

When someone says “if A, then B”, it's not very honest to quote them as saying B. And what do you mean by “I help make this website”? Does having a lot of karma give you the right to ignore basic civility? Was this website constructed by going around being rude to people? Or is that a recent development on your part?

Let me try again: when a newcomer and an oldtimer disagree on what is appropriate for a site, when the oldtimer was around before the site existed, helped make it, and is a major contributor by comments, articles, and karma, which is more likely to be correct? I'm thinking... it's probably not the newcomer, and that arguing that is astoundingly presumptuous of them.

I didn't say that I was dismissing all other hypotheses, only noting that of all the posters, you are the most likely candidate to have downvoted.

Nice walk back there. 'I never said he was a communist, I was merely noting he was the most likely candidate to be a communist.'

So to reiterate my previous question - you know, since you're totally not trolling or anything, and you're definitely arguing in good faith, and you're surely not going to reply with just some more rhetoric and attempts to shame or nitpick irrelevant wording, in this thread or others - what is your actual problem with these concepts? Do you have data which refutes the relevant concepts entirely? Or what?

Tests yield metrics. More quibbling.

What metric to apply to a test is a completely nontrivial issue, and the fact that you refer to such a crucial issue as "quibbling" shows how little you understand about the issue.

Yes, it is, when you're criticizing an entire century-old well-developed field with an abundance of materials online.

I'm not criticizing the field. I'm asking you to answer a simple question, and you're refusing.

At this point, the burden is not on the person talking about intelligence.

Simply declaring yourself to not have ... (read more)

16

Terminology Thread (or "name that pattern")

16

16

16

Terminology Thread (or "name that pattern")

16

16