[Before I say anything else, an entirely separate thing: I have consistently been typing your name as "ChristianKI" when in fact it's "ChristianKl" (the two are pixel-for-pixel identical on my screen, but others using different fonts may see the difference -- the wrong one has a capital eye at the end, the right one a lowercase ell). My apologies for getting your name wrong.]

the first post I wrote was [...] far away from status-fight.

OK, I agree. I'd either not read that one, or forgotten it (it was in a separate thread starting from a different top-level comment on SIH's post).

With increased attempts of him to dodge debate, I used more strong language.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't look like an accurate description. The actual sequence appears to be (times as displayed to me by LW -- I'm not sure what it does about timezones):

• 18th, 11:43: friendly comment from CK (which gets a friendly response from SIH; no further discussion there; everything else is in a different thread).
• 18th, 15:52: challenge from Lumifer (increased rationality versus increased ossification).
• 18th, 22:24: SIH replies to L listing indications (observed better effectiveness, sense-of-elegance, consonance with others' opinions).
• 19th, 11:41: CK picks out one of SIH's indications (sense-of-elegance) and says "That is also frequently happening with people adopting wrong beliefs".
• 19th, 12:20: SIH replies (not claiming infallibility; mathematical experience hones one's sense of elegance, especially in first-principles cases).
  • So far, nothing is notably either hostile or evasive, at least to my eyes.
• 19th, 12:39: CK replies ("seems like having a hedgehog perspective", "you are unlikely to be very good at predicting").
  • This is where I first get the impression of status-fighting. You seem to leap to the assumption that SIH wants to use first-principles reasoning where it doesn't belong, with (so I still think) no actual justification; you express your criticisms personally ("you are unlikely ...").
• 19th, 13:12: SIH says CK is jumping to conclusions, and thanks you for the warning.
  • Doesn't seem to me either hostile or evasive (though I think it would have been better if he'd said what wrong conclusions he thought you were jumping to).
• 19th, 13:46: CK defends conclusion-jumping and invites SIH to say what wrong conclusions.
  • FWIW I tend to disagree with the idea that conclusion-jumping is a good way to find out what someone means, but I don't see anything either hostile or evasive here.
• 19th, 21:31: SIH says CK is making a fully general counterargument and challenges CK to argue against his own position.
  • That's a weird move, and SIH himself has said (see his edit to that comment) that it was a mistake.
  • From this point I think the prospects of useful discussion were very poor because both parties were trying to win rather than to understand and arrive jointly at truth.