= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
dhasenan comments on Letting it go: when you shouldn't respond to someone who is wrong - 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 (34)
I'm fed up with people not putting effort into their disagreements. I'm fed up with people finding the first minor flaw and treating that as invalidation of everything, instead of seeing if there is a slight variation of what I'm saying that works.
I know that people can find flaws in things quickly sometimes. And these can be major flaws that cause the entire argument to collapse. That's not nearly as common, though.
One Google query of research would raise the quality of discussion without being too burdensome.
Like this?
I my experience what's actually happening in those kinds on situations is that there are two different variations of what the person wrote and the argument relies on equivocation between the two.
Sometimes (though by no means always) that is the case. In such situations, isn't it better to point out the difference between the variations, the falseness of the equivocation, and the fact that the argument relies on that equivocation? That seems much more productive than simply latching onto one point you disagree with and claiming it invalidates the entire argument. By pointing out the reliance on false equivocation, you have actually countered the argument itself instead of merely weakening the evidence for it.
(I think that's what the GP is arguing against people doing. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. Also, today I learned that "equivocation" is nearly as fun to write as it is to say.)
I find that asking people to clarify their argument until its flaws are obvious works better then clarifying it yourself in a way they'll perceive as uncharitable.
That places the onus on them to keep the conversation going. They gain the option of either just not responding, or saying "I really don't see how this could be misinterpreted" or similar and just re-stating their view.
With that said, though, it does seem more likely to work, if the goal is a functional community rather than making a particular point.
Let me provide an example for you :-) I read this sentence as you actively expecting people to be charitable to you and wanting people to steelman your comments.