You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

cursed comments on Open thread, Nov. 09 - Nov. 15, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: MrMind 09 November 2015 08:07AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (175)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (175)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: cursed 15 November 2015 08:26:44AM 1 point [-]

Is there a good word for https://xkcd.com/774/? The closest word I can think of is "countersignaling", but it doesn't precisely describe it. I've noticed this sort of behavior a lot on Facebook recently, with the Paris terrorist attacks.

Comment author: Viliam 16 November 2015 08:30:47AM 2 points [-]

This seems related:

there are many ways to try and signal wisdom. But trying to signal wisdom by refusing to make guesses - refusing to sum up evidence - refusing to pass judgment - refusing to take sides - staying above the fray and looking down with a lofty and condescending gaze - which is to say, signaling wisdom by saying and doing nothing - well, that I find particularly pretentious.

... part of it also has to do with signaling a superior vantage point. After all - what would the other adults think of a principal who actually seemed to be taking sides in a fight between mere children? Why, it would lower his status to a mere participant in the fray!

Similarly with the revered elder - who might be a CEO, a prestigious academic, or a founder of a mailing list - whose reputation for fairness depends on their refusal to pass judgment themselves, when others are choosing sides. Sides appeal to them for support, but almost always in vain; for the Wise are revered judges on the condition that they almost never actually judge - then they would just be another disputant in the fray, no better than any other mere arguer.

... On this point I'd advise remembering that neutrality is a definite judgment. It is not staying above anything. It is putting forth the definite and particular position that the balance of evidence in a particular case licenses only one summation, which happens to be neutral. This, too, can be wrong; propounding neutrality is just as attackable as propounding any particular side.

There's a difference between:

  • Passing neutral judgment;
  • Declining to invest marginal resources;
  • Pretending that either of the above is a mark of deep wisdom, maturity, and a superior vantage point; with the corresponding implication that the original sides occupy lower vantage points that are not importantly different from up there.

-- Pretending to be Wise

Comment author: cursed 20 November 2015 08:33:53AM 0 points [-]

This isn't bad, though I feel like:

This I call "pretending to be Wise". Of course there are many ways to try and signal wisdom. But trying to signal wisdom by refusing to make guesses - refusing to sum up evidence - refusing to pass judgment - refusing to take sides - staying above the fray and looking down with a lofty and condescending gaze - which is to say, signaling wisdom by saying and doing nothing - well, that I find particularly pretentious.

would apply to the XKCD example, but not to the people claiming that the Lebanon attacks should've been publicized more than the Paris attacks. I hope I'm not treading too much into political territory here.

Comment author: Viliam 20 November 2015 09:19:51AM *  2 points [-]

That would be closer to Nirvana fallacy, applied to activism. "People do something good. You criticize them for not doing something better instead." This argument happens all the time. See also The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics.

There is a standard solution S0 that almost everyone chooses. Someone chooses a better solution S1. They get attacked for not choosing even better solution S2.

The harmful part is that choosing S1 over S2 is socially punished, while choosing S0 over both S1 and S2 flies under the radar. If the reason for choosing S1 over S2 was that the solution S2 was too complicated or too expensive, we effectively teach people to choose S0 over S1 to avoid the punishment in the future.

(Specifically: S2 = reporting on Lebanon and Paris attacks appropriately; S1 = focusing on Paris; S0 = ignoring both.)

Comment author: cursed 30 November 2015 10:04:06PM 0 points [-]

Great analysis, thanks!

Comment author: Bryan-san 15 November 2015 04:32:52PM *  1 point [-]

Correction: first is an example of weak man argument mixed with personal uncomfortability. However, we could also strong man that as character 1 being agnostic and annoyed at people's attempts at arguing for certainty on the topic.

Second comment is a variant on "my opponent believes something" (noncentral fallacy territory) but breaks into genetic fallacy with the emotion part. My opponent feels annoyed by two opposing groups which is kind of like he thinks that they are intrinsically inferior which is kind of like he thinks he is better/smarter than them which is kind of like he had a superiority complex which is kind of like he doesn't care about the issue at all which is kind of like he is just self centered which is kind of like he's a bad person.

(I may have added extra steps but you get the picture)

Also, good job at noticing your own confusion and uncomfortableness with it even if you weren't sure why!

Comment author: mwengler 15 November 2015 08:42:05PM 0 points [-]

Meta-signaling? He appears to be signaling something by signaling something.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit