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.

The_Lion comments on Are we failing the ideological Turing test in the case of ISIS? (a crazy ideas thread) - Less Wrong Discussion

-1 Post author: Val 09 January 2016 04:42PM

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

Comments (108)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: gjm 10 January 2016 08:19:40PM 6 points [-]

You're right that this is hotly debated, because some people are very confident that there is a systematic process of kowtowing to Islamic immigrants (because of some sort of left-leaning ideology) and some other people are very confident that there isn't (and that the first lot are claiming there is because of some sort of right-leaning ideology).

It seems to me that the sensible thing to do, if you're aware of this hot debate and want to avoid a firefight, is not

  • to make a post that casually asserts one side's preferred position, and then when questioned say you don't want to argue about it,

but

  • to refrain from making unnecessary hot-button statements in the first place.
Comment deleted 10 January 2016 09:40:14PM *  [-]
Comment author: gjm 11 January 2016 01:35:33AM 2 points [-]

Or you could, you know, look at the evidence each side presents.

I am 100% in favour of looking at the evidence. But that isn't a thing Val could have done to avoid arguments breaking out in the comments, because how carefully Val has looked at the evidence has essentially no bearing on whether others choose to argue about the issue. And it certainly isn't a thing Val could have done to avoid arguments while also expressing an unwillingness to get involved in those arguments because the only way Val's expertise thus acquired could influence the arguments would be through Val getting involved.

Comment deleted 12 January 2016 01:14:47AM [-]
Comment author: gjm 12 January 2016 09:42:20AM 1 point [-]

Every strategy has drawbacks. If you prioritize avoiding arguments then indeed you have to accept having less influence than people willing to have those arguments.

So it could be that, given Val's actual preferences, avoiding arguments wasn't a good priority to have. But given Val's stated goals (avoiding distraction from the main point of the discussion), leaving the topic alone would have met then better than bringing up an inflammatory and distracting topic and then declining to discuss it.

It seems to me as if "don't bring up the distractingly inflammatory topic, but if someone else does and gets things very wrong then be ready with convincing evidence and arguments" is a strictly better strategy than "bring up the distractingly inflammatory topic, but then declare yourself unsettling to talk about it" both for avoiding conceding control to the crazy and for avoiding distractions.