= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Gleb_Tsipursky comments on Weirdness at the wiki - 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 (82)
Nope, Elo's motivations are not obvious to me. I don't want to suffer from the typical mind fallacy here, so I used the first virtue of curiosity to get more information.
So let's try the obvious default thing: Elo thinks that the old version does not reflect the character of InIn properly and changed the page to make it -- from her point of view -- better / more accurate. Any particular reason you find the obvious motivation unsatisfying?
Really really sounds like you are using these things to imply, "I am more rational than the others on this forum", compliments to @Lumifier for not taking it that way.
"Elo's motivations are not obvious to me. I am asking because I was curious about why he did this"
Would be a better way to say the same thing, without saying "I used the virtue and mentioned a fallacy (that's all about what rationality is about right?), reward me with internet gold".
Why assume the ugliest possible interpretation of his meaning?
I would call this an example of tell culture.
Was the phrasing used, instead of ("you are..."). To try to point out what it sounds like he is saying... (probably could have said - "to me it sounds like...", but that should be a given - I am posting the post...)
Ugliest or not; it's an interpretation that I chose to share. I also tried to improve the statement to make it less "ugly".
I don't know - should I not do that at all?
Can you help with what it "sounds like" I am doing? (keen to learn and change)
I don't oppose drawing interpretations, but the whole InIn discussion has been tainted by opponents attacking each other's motivations for what they said instead of the content of what they said.
True.
in light of that: "to me it sounds like..." is probably more appropriate.
My state is that Gleb is trying to do good things - i.e. raise the sanity waterline (as a goal).
As yet he has made a lot of noise and not shown success in the process; or produced content worthy of respect. It remains to be seen if he:
Given those seem like the options; I would rather 1 then 3 then 2.
I expect from glebs perspective it looks like:
where his preference order is 2, 1, 3.
I hope we can meet in the middle; and given that "fight the haters and win on the internet" is a statement of comedy itself, I am keen to see the content improve.
I am not sure there is agreement about the direction of improvement.
Gleb has posted how he finds it difficult to write sleazy scummy content, but overpowers his reluctance and through great personal sacrifice does write it. I would expect that "improvement" for him means more concentrated snake oil or, perhaps, less personal discomfort with producing it.
I don't think this is what Elo would consider "improvement".
I don't think it's okay to put those words ("sleazy scummy concentrated snake oil") in someone else's mouth, unless it is part of an actual quote.
I am not quoting Gleb, I'm rephrasing his comment in my own words and from my own point of view. I think this is his original comment, but he repeated this in other places as well.
Gleb described having had to overpower reluctance to write in the style that publications like Lifehacker want, expressed some reservations about that style in morally-neutral language, and gave reasons for using it anyways. Separately, you and others (but not Gleb) described that style as sleazy and scummy. Mix these two things together and discard the attributions, and you've created the impression that Gleb thinks of the style as sleazy and scummy, and writes in it anyways. That would reflect negatively on his character if it were true, but it isn't. Having to use an actual quote would have made this mistake impossible.
that sounds like 2 not 1. yes. Now what (should be done)?